Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified).

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Poland (British Claims)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to obtain repayment from Poland of British claims against that country.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Negotiations are in progress.

Hungarian Debt (Interest Repayment)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is including repayment of interest due on the Hungarian bonded debt in the present discussions on trade with Hungary.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Teeling: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind, in these negotiations, that it is always possible that one Department may feel determined to make a success of their part in them without realising fully the needs of other Departments? Can he assure us that the Treasury is keeping well in mind the fact that the Hungarians, as far back as 1949, were offering to pay certain sums, and make quite sure that today's figures will be no less than those of 1949?

Mr. Maudling: All Departments are equally keen to make sure that their own interests are watched, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of pay-

ments in respect of the debt from Hungary is very much in our minds.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does that mean that claims for compensation for the industries which Hungary has nationalised will be dealt with as in the case of similar negotiations with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say how these negotiations are going on and when they are likely to be concluded?

Mr. Maudling: No, I cannot say. They were started only fairly recently and they are rather complicated.

Production (New Capital Investment)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in future numbers of the Economic Survey, he will relate more clearly the effect on production of new capital investment.

Mr. Maudling: It is not possible to isolate the effects of investment from the other factors which influence the course of production. In many cases, moreover, these do not fully mature for a considerable period.

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that on one page are given statistics of new investment and, two pages further on, the increase in production, yet adverse comments on private enterprise were made in the debate although it increased its output far more than the nationalised industries?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the adverse comments made in the recent debate about private enterprise were fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Economic Survey (Statistics)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish an estimate of the degree of accuracy, plus or minus, of the estimated statistics in the Economic Survey.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir; an adequate interpretation of the statistics in the Economic Survey is available in the Survey itself, in the Balance of Payments White Paper, and in the National Income Blue Book.

Sir H. Williams: As many of these statistics are only reasoned guesses, might they not be produced on the usual scientific basis, giving some indication of the possible degree of error, because they are treated by ordinary people as representative of the precise truth?

Mr. Maudling: I feel that the degree of error would be only a reasoned guess. It is fairly common knowledge to those who read the document that the estimates are the best we can give, and that the degree of statistical reliability must vary from figure to figure.

National Debt Increase (State Assets)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new assets we have secured as a result of an increase in the National Debt of £531,000,000 during the year ended 31st March, 1954.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): For details of the change in the estimated assets of the State over the year ended 31st March, 1954, I must ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for 1953–54.
There will be very substantial increases in assets in respect of the Local Loans Fund and the National Coal Board. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend mentioned in his Budget speech, in considering the assumption of liability by the Treasury for British Iron and Steel 3½ per cent. Guaranteed Stock one must also remember the securities of the nationalised companies which have been transferred to the Holding and Realisation Agency.

Roumanian and Hungarian Assets (Distribution)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be able to make a statement about the distribution of Roumanian and Hungarian assets held by the Custodian of Enemy Property.

Mr. Maudling: A draft of the Treasury direction is nearly ready. I hope to make it available to Parliament before the direction comes into effect, and, at the same time, to give any explanations that may be needed.

Mr. Teeling: It was as far back as July, 1952, that we were told that this direction was almost ready? Can my hon. Friend

give us any reason for this long delay, which has caused a lot of inconvenience to many people?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, I have already expressed regret on more than one occasion for the delay that has taken place, which, I agree, has been very long. It is now merely a question of finishing the legal drafting of the direction, which is a complicated task, but it is going on and it should not take long to finish.

Mr. Teeling: Can my hon. Friend say when it will be finished, within a few weeks or months? It took years last time.

Mr. Maudling: Within weeks, Sir.

Budget Proposals (Pamphlet)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will resume the practice of the former Government and publish an illustrated pamphlet entitled, "The Budget and Your Pocket," explaining, in the simplest terms, what the Budget proposals will mean to the British taxpayer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The usual Budget poster will be prepared as soon as the Finance Bill is enacted, and will be widely distributed.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the days of the Labour Government the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to publish an interesting booklet called "The Budget and your Pocket" which enabled ordinary people, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who cannot understand the Economic Survey, to appreciate some facts about their national life? Also, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would help the old-age pensioners to understand the position?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the explanation of my right hon. Friend's financial proposals, which he and others have given from this Box, are adequate to explain the admirable nature of those proposals.

Commander Donaldson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some extraordinary people who would also like elucidation, such as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do my best to explain them to him, too.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that the Budgets of the Labour Government needed much more explaining than the Budgets of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Some of them, I think, defied explanation.

Highland Games (Tax Revenue)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what receipts he had in 1953 for entertainment tax on Highland games.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £6,000.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: In view of the fact that it is a very small amount, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of the smaller Highland communities are unable to carry on their Highland games this year, and will he weight this comparatively small sum against the damage to the Highland cultural interests and also to the tourist industry?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend has had representations on this subject. It is the fact that under the existing law some of these games are able to qualify for exemption, but some are not. However, the representations of my noble Friend will be borne in mind.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mock auctioneers made greater profits at the Highland games last year than in any other part of Britain?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not see anything about mock auctioneers in this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Pests Officers, Dorset

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what salaries and travelling expenses were paid to pests officers in the county of Dorset; what salaries were paid to the operatives; and what has been the income of this department during the years 1952 and 1953.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Salaries and travelling expenses paid

to pests officers in Dorset amounted to £3,215 in 1952–53 and £2,866 in 1953–54. In these years wages paid to operatives amounted to £3,067 and £2,528. The income of the pests department in the two years was £6,738 and about £6,000.

Mr. Crouch: In the interests of economy and to make the pests department pay, will my hon. Friend consider reducing the number of pests officers to one? To have three pests officers to supervise eight rodent officers, or rat catchers, seems very much like overloading.

Mr. Nugent: My hon. Friend is not, perhaps, quite clear on the functions of the pests officers. They have an advisory function of advising farmers in Dorset generally about the destruction of pests, as well as overseeing the operatives. It may be that there are a large number of pests in Dorset, but, in any event, this number of officers is needed.

Mr. Awbery: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an estimate of the value of the services rendered by these people and the advantages obtained from what they do?

Mr. Nugent: They are responsible for the destruction of pests generally—rabbits, mice, and so on—on farms and they perform a valuable function in preventing the destruction of a great deal of food.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Are all pests officers rat catchers, or all rat catchers pests officers?

Mr. Nugent: The pests officers are, so to speak, in the advisory strata. It is the operatives who are actually involved in the catching.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the efficiency of the pests officers in Dorset has in no way been in question?

Myxomatosis (Statements)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will issue a weekly statement on the spread of myxomatosis among rabbits from now until the autumn.

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend will certainly report from time to time on the spread of the disease into new areas.


Weekly statements do not seem justified at present. If later the rate of spread of the disease increases, I shall be willing to consider it.

Mr. Hurd: Can my hon. Friend tell us the areas in which the disease has appeared to date and give an assurance that the Advisory Committee, which has produced such a good report, will continue to watch very closely the extent and character of the outbreaks and, in due course, make another public report, so that everybody may know the position?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Myxomatosis Committee is a standing committee. It will continue to watch the development of the disease and my right hon. Friend and I will be able to give the House reports on how it spreads in the course of the next month or two. There are now 17 established centres of infection, five of which have been confirmed in the past month.

Mr. S. Silverman: So that we may all understand this interesting discourse, will the Parliamentary Secretary say what myxomatosis is?

Mr. Nugent: Myxomatosis is a very unpleasant disease caught by rabbits, and recently broke out in this country. It came over here last autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Neglected Children (Training of Mothers)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many establishments are now in operation to which mothers charged with neglecting their children may be sent for training.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homes now exist for the reception and training of mothers found guilty of neglecting their children; and which organisations have provided or are operating these homes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): Mothers placed on probation for child neglect may be required by the court to reside either at Mayflower, the

Salvation Army's training home at Plymouth, or at Spofforth Hall, the Elizabeth Fry Memorial Trust Home, near Harrogate. A part of Birmingham prison is used for training women who have been sentenced for neglect of, or cruelty to, children.

Mrs. White: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department any intention of increasing, or helping to increase, the number of these homes? There must be a large number of women charged with neglect who do not receive this training; some are sent to prison. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that ordinary prison sentences are useless in these cases and that this training is by far the best treatment?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Mayflower has seldom been fully used since it opened in January, 1948. It has been full during the last few months, however, and if it continues so the position will, of course, be watched.

Brigadier Medlicott: Will my hon. Friend convey to the Salvation Army his appreciation of its valuable pioneer work in this important field and assure it of his support in whatever extension of this work may prove to be desirable?

Mrs. White: If the Mayflower Home is not fully used, is it because of the reluctance of magistrates to suggest that women should go there for training, to ignorance, or to what other reason?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I could not answer that; it is a matter of speculation. It may be that this Question and answer will bring the matter to the attention of the courts.

Young Girls (Indecent Assaults)

Mr. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Regina v. King; and whether he will introduce legislation to cover this oversight in the present law.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to increase the maximum sentence for indecent assault on young girls.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 1st April to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton).

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend not realise the great abhorrence that is felt when a man can, apparently, receive only a two-years' sentence of imprisonment for an indecent assault on a girl aged two when he has had five previous convictions for a similar offence? Will my hon. Friend not see whether anything can be done to speed up legislation in this matter, as suggested by the Lord Chief Justice?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Lord Chief Justice was dealing with an exceptional case. My right hon. and learned Friend has no reason to think that the maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment is not generally adequate. When the accused is convicted on more than one charge, consecutive sentences may be imposed.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Undersecretary bear in mind that not everybody agrees with the Lord Chief Justice in this matter and that the whole question was fully investigated when the Criminal Justice Bill, which later became an Act, was being considered, and that the great preponderance of opinion is all the other way?

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, a far greater body of opinion would say, I think, that a man who has been guilty of five offences and then inflicts an irreparable offence on a child aged two deserves more than two years' imprisonment? The law ought to bear in mind these exceptional cases. Although we are all interested in the minority view that protects an isolated individual, far more hon. Members of the House are interested in the general view that protects the whole community and particularly young children.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would bear the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in mind. All he said was that he could not at present say when it would be possible to introduce legislation.

Steeplechasing (Cruelty)

Mr. H. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the abhorrence with which the present form of Steeplechasing is regarded; and if he will introduce legislation to facilitate the prosecution for cruelty to animals of promoters of this type of sport.

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the risks of injury and death involved for horses in organised steeplechase races.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause an investigation to be made into the conditions under which steeplechases are run, with a view to establishing whether any element of cruelty is involved to the horses engaged.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend has no responsibility in this matter, regulation of the conditions under which Steeplechasing takes place being a matter for the authorities responsible for the conduct of the sport. While he greatly regrets the death of four horses at Aintree on 27th March, he does not think that a committee appointed by the Government would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I asked about amending legislation? Can he tell the House whether he has considered a prosecution in connection with the Grand National under existing legislation and, if so, with what result? To satisfy himself about the rising indignation felt at this carnage and slaughter of horses, will he visit a cinema and see the current newsreel of the Grand National and hear for himself the horror with which the audience view the showing of this year's Grand National?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend is inviting the National Hunt Committee to discuss the matter with him on Wednesday, 28th April, and as my hon. Friend has already given notice that he will raise it on the Adjournment on 29th April, I think these matters might better be discussed then.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter, not only among the general public, but among racegoers, who


feel that this particular racecourse is not fair to courageous horses and that, apart from improvements to the course itself, there is a great deal to be said for limiting this race to horses of proved quality which have gained at least first or second place in steeplechases of recognised standing?

Mr. Bottomley: If it is proved that cruelty arises from this kind of race, is it not the responsibility of the Home Secretary to take action to ensure that it is stopped?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend is to discuss this matter with the National Hunt Committee. I think that, pending that discussion, it would not be right to express an opinion on the matter.

Mr. E. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that people who have practical experience of the training and riding of steeplechase horses, in the Grand National and elsewhere, do not agree that there is any cruelty involved, that they have absolute confidence in the decisions and wisdom of the National Hunt Committee, that conditions are already laid down such as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) has suggested, which limit the entry of horses to those which have won races of a certain character? If steeplechasing were abolished, a great many of the horses now used for this purpose would become meat.

Affiliation Orders (U.S. Service Men)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many American Service men will initially be affected by the bringing into operation of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, in respect of payments for the maintenance of illegitimate children.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I regret that this information is not available.

Brigadier Medlicott: Would the Minister make it as widely known as possible, certainly in round figures, that the numbers affected are not likely to be more than hundreds—not the 60,000 or 70,000 which was so widely and wrongly reported some weeks ago?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This matter has been debated, but if my hon. and gallant Friend wants particular figures I invite him to ask another Question.

Portuguese Criminal (Entry into U.K.)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no objection was raised by the officials of his Department to the entry of the Portuguese gunman Justine de Almeida to this country.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No adverse information about this man was available when he was granted leave to land in this country.

Mr. Janner: Can the hon. Gentleman say why such a case can arise in respect of a man who was very well known, whose criminal record was very lengthy and who had a vicious nature? Is there no possibility at all of having a record of that kind available when such a man arrives?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The police have now been informed by the United States police that Almeida had a long record of convictions for armed robbery in that country. He was finally deported from the United States to Portugal in December, 1953. I understand, further, that he had no criminal record in Portugal and we had no criminal record of him here.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we spend £4 million a year on the Secret Service? In view of its incapacity to deal with cases of this kind, will he suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this would be a good case for an economy cut?

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the nature of the inquiries being made in respect to the passport of Justine de Almeida, a Portuguese citizen, who recently arrived in this country.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: De Almeida produced a passport to the British passport control officer in Lisbon and to the immigration officer, and this was accepted by both officers as valid. Inquiries were subsequently made of the Portuguese authorities, who have confirmed that the passport was in order.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the St. Pancras coroner, who looked into this matter thoroughly, was not satisfied that the visa was in order, in that he suggested that inquiries should be made of the British authorities in Lisbon? Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the passport is wholly in order so far as the British authorities are concerned?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: A visa and a passport are, of course, two separate things. The hon. Member put down a Question about the passport, which I have answered. If he wishes to put a question about the visa, he should put it on the Order Paper.

Homeless Ex-Prisoners (Care)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the number of discharged prisoners who are homeless, he will introduce legislation to set up a Government-controlled body to be responsible for looking after discharged prisoners in cases of necessity.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend is ready to consider, in consultation with the after-care organisations and the National Assistance Board, any specific proposals for improving the existing arrangements for the care of homeless ex-prisoners. On present information, however, he would not consider it either necessary or desirable to set up another body for this purpose.

Mr. Yates: While appreciating that answer, may I ask whether the Minister will go into the matter further, especially in view of the case I submitted to him on 2nd March, to which I have not yet had a reply? Is he aware that recently, in Birmingham, a man walked the streets for 36 hours, after being released from prison, before he was able to obtain a bed? It really is most tragic when so many men who have been in prison—I know it is a fact in Birmingham—are homeless and have no opportunity of being set on the road to rehabilitation. Is it not a very serious matter?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that the particular case the hon. Member has in mind is one where a man, after interviewing the local aid society, had a bed booked for him at a Salvation Army

hostel, but did not turn up to claim it. Instead, he seems to have gone, on that night and on the following night, to other Salvation Army hostels where there was no room. The responsibility for this muddle is not clear. It will be looked into further, but I think it will be clear that a single case does not afford ground in itself for reviewing the whole system, still less for setting up a new service.

Mr. Yates: Every week there are several cases, especially in Birmingham, of homeless ex-prisoners. I have given one example, and there are more, of ex-prisoners who have actually committed crimes in order to get somewhere to sleep. It is a tragic situation. The Salvation Army is doing its best, but it does not support the view which the Minister expressed.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. Member has evidence that there are numerous such cases, I hope he will submit it to my right hon. and learned Friend, or myself.

Mr. Yates: I will do so.

Metropolitan Police (Palace of Westminister Guides)

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations he has made to allow police officers off-duty to offer themselves as guides in the Palace of Westminster.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: None, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the reply, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is contrary to police regulations to offer a policeman alternative duty? Is it not possible, through the hon. Gentleman or his Department, to see that hon. Members have opportunities of getting police guides, as has been the practice through the ages? Is it not the case that an hon. Member is more comfortable and happy if his constituents can be shown round the Palace of Westminster by someone he knows and can trust?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Police regulations do not prohibit police officers off duty acting as guides, although they would require the consent of the Commissioner of Police before accepting a reward for doing so. The rule that police officers may act as guides only when off duty has been made by the Serjeant at Arms. It was not made at the instance of my right


hon. and learned Friend, nor the Commissioner of Police. Hitherto, plain clothes police officers on duty in the Palace of Westminster have conducted hon. Members' parties, when their duties permitted, as a courtesy to hon. Members and without official authority.

Mr. Griffiths: Could not the same facilities be granted, as, so far as I can see, an encroachment has been made on the amenities of hon. Members which have been in existence for many years? I intend to fight for the right which hon. Members opposite have had for centuries in this House.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If there has been any encroachment it is not the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a Select Committee is at present looking into this matter? Will he take no action in these cases until that Committee has reported, as, in the body of the report, there will possibly be reflections about this sort of thing which will cause changes of opinion about it.

David John Ware (Death in Broadmoor)

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date David John Ware died in Broadmoor; the circumstances of his death; the inquest verdict; and whether Ware made, in anticipation of death, any reference to the late Walter Graham Rowland or the late Olive Balchin.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Ware committed suicide on 1st April. The verdict returned at the inquest was that the deceased killed himself while the balance of his mind was disturbed and that the cause of death was strangulation through hanging by the neck.
The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Silverman: In view of the verdict at the inquest, which was, apparently, not one of insanity, and in view of the man's confession, which showed quite clearly that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong, can the hon. Gentleman explain why Ware ever came to be an inmate of a criminal lunatic asylum at all? Secondly, now that we have come to the grim end of this grim

story, and all the people most nearly concerned with it are now dead, does not the hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. and learned Friend might reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry in this case, to see what miscarriage of justice occurred?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Those questions are entirely different from that on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have them answered, he must put them down.

Sir Roger Casement (Remains)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department his reasons for refusing permission for the remains of the late Sir Roger Casement to be transferred to Ireland.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Successive Governments have considered this matter and have found no reason for departing from the invariable practice of refusing permission for the removal of the remains of executed prisoners. My right hon. and learned Friend sees no reason to take any other view.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary said recently in the House that it was not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to carry hatred beyond the grave; and does that not apply to Ireland? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the late Sir Roger Casement is recognised as a great Irish patriot and that the Irish rebellion, is, from the Irish point of view, a great episode in the successful struggle for independence? Does he not think it is time that he should apply the same principle to Ireland that the Foreign Secretary enunciated with regard to Germany?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not thought by this Government, nor has it been thought by previous Governments, that the removal of Casement's remains would help to improve relations between this country and the Irish Republic. Indeed, by reawakening the memory of old differences, leading to demonstrations, and so on, it might do the reverse.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain how he reconciles that attitude with the quite opposite attitude, in parallel circumstances, of the Foreign Secretary in the


other case? I believe it is quite impossible to reconcile the two.

Mr. G. Jeger: As Eire has now separated herself from the Commonwealth how can it lead to any rising against British rule, which is what the hon. Gentleman suggests might happen if the remains of this Irish patriot were taken back to his native land for interment there? It is a simple human question.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think I suggested that it would lead to a rising or anything of that kind. I said that it would reawaken memories of old differences.

Local Authorities (Civil Defence Arrangements)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many communications he has received from local authorities expressing concern at the inadequacy of existing Civil Defence arrangements in the light of recent developments; and what answers he has given.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The only communication of this kind which my right hon. and learned Friend has so far received is the one from Coventry, and the hon. Member has, no doubt, read the terms of the reply which has been made public.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not wish to condone the attitude of Coventry Council in banning all forms of Civil Defence, but it remains true that a great many local authorities are very concerned about what changes should be made in Civil Defence preparations in the light of the hydrogen bomb, and are very anxious to have authoritative guidance from the Home Office on this matter at an early date. Could the hon. Gentleman say what his Department is doing about it?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, and as I have said, the position is being reviewed in the light of the explosion of the hydrogen bomb, and my right hon. and learned Friend has promised to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Under-Secretary aware that many local authorities are dissatisfied with the present method of

organisation? Perhaps he will recall that the Medway area would like to be its own authority. Because it is not it has not that enthusiasm for recruiting Civil Defence volunteers which local responsibilty would encourage.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend has made a statement any such feeling will disappear.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (SOUTH WALES PORTS)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour how many dock employees are unemployed at each of the principal South Wales Bristol Channel ports, at the latest available date; and what steps are being taken to deal with this problem.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): In the week ended 3rd April, the average daily numbers of registered dock workers surplus to requirements were:


Newport
…
…
…
372


Cardiff
…
…
…
151


Barry
…
…
…
129


Port Talbot
…
…
…
16


Swansea
…
…
…
87


These men remain in the employment of the National Dock Labour Board and they are offered work in neighbouring ports as opportunities occur.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that at present, owing to shortage of work, particularly in Cardiff and Barry, some men have to be taken long distances each day which is a very expensive procedure? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the danger that those men who were formerly employed in coal exporting will be absorbed into other industry and, if required again, may not become readily available?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. The Government are well aware of the difficulty of some of these South Wales ports. I think my hon. Friend has recently questioned my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about this, and I cannot go beyond the answer which my right hon. Friend gave.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the transfer arrangement between port and port is working very satisfactorily in South Wales, and that such a condition of transfer did not exist before the war?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I think that is quite true.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour how many people in the borough of Barry unemployed at the latest date for which figures are available have been totally unemployed for a period of six months; and what steps he is taking to assist them in finding employment.

Mr. Watkinson: On 15th March, 59 men and 50 women registered as unemployed at the Barry Employment Exchange had been without work for over six months. These include a number who suffer from disability or who are otherwise handicapped, but my hon. Friend may be assured that every effort will continue to be made to place them in any employment for which they may be suited.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction in the area that these figures are so very low?

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the figures in Barry are so low because a number of engineering industries have been introduced into the district as a result of the work of the Labour Government?

Mr. Watkinson: The fact remains that the figures are low, and that is the matter which interests me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY HOSPITAL, LEICESTER (STANDARD)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the building used as the Westcotes Maternity Hospital, Leicester, is up to the required standard and generally satisfactory for its purposes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend is informed that the hospital authorities are at present carrying out certain improvements with a view to raising the standard.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Lady make an inquiry into the position herself, as there is considerable dissatisfaction with the accommodation for patients?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that position is accepted in view of the fact that it was originally intended to close the Westcotes Maternity Hospital and to provide alternative accommodation at the John Faire Hospital, Leicester, which is now empty. That scheme will not be completed until next year, and it has been decided, in view of the necessity for these beds, that this particular unit should be upgraded and improvements made. These are under way.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Television Service

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Education what interval will elapse before a school television service, on an experimental basis, becomes possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am told that a large-scale experiment would involve lengthy preparations, considerable expenditure and heavy demands on studio space and equipment; it is not likely to be practicable, therefore, except in the form of the preliminary trials of a permanent school television service. I understand that at present the B.B.C. cannot say how soon such a service could be started, in the event of its being decided that one should be made available to the schools.

Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the representatives of the British Broadcasting Corporation informed his right hon. Friend, when they met her, that owing to this shortage of studio space and trained television staff, they would have to concentrate all their efforts in the next year or two on meeting the challenge of commercial television, and that that is the real reason why this very desirable educational television service is being postponed?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not sure whether that question is a supplementary to the Question on the Order Paper, but it is not possible for me to give a specific answer to it.

Brigadier Medlicott: While not wishing to minimise the importance of this programme, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that there are many parts of the country, particularly East Anglia, where television is not yet receivable at all, and that it would be unsatisfactory for this service to be introduced until it may be done on a nation-wide basis?

Mr. Pickthorn: As an East Anglian myself I am well aware of that.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been widely reported in the Press that the B.B.C. representatives made this point in their discussions with the Minister? Will he confirm or deny it?

Mr. Pickthorn: I have said that I will not confirm it or deny it. I am not aware of any Press comment on this matter.

School Building Programme, Warwickshire

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware of the increase in the birth rate of Warwickshire which has taken place earlier there than elsewhere; and whether, in view of this and other exceptional circumstances, she is satisfied that the 1955–56 building programme will cope with the anticipated shortage of school places in this county.

Mr. Pickthorn: The local education authority have submitted full details in support of their proposals for the 1955–56 school building programme and these are now being studied. The programme will have to be related to my right hon. Friend's policy as set out in Circular 245 and to what is practicable locally, but within these limits it will be fixed to provide additional school places where they are required.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the Warwickshire County Council is deeply concerned about the future position? I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's concluding words, but is he aware that the Minister conceded the argument of the Coventry county borough about the extraordinary increase in the birth rate? Will she, when considering the Warwickshire claim, pay attention to that fact?

Mr. Pickthorn: I must not be taken as admitting the universal validity of the

argument that whatever happens anywhere must happen anywhere else, but my right hon. Friend is extremely conscious of the high rate of increase of population in the area with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. She is well aware of the migration out of Birmingham in that direction and the immigration especially of miners and engineers; and in the fixing of the new programme all that will be, and is being at this moment, taken fully into consideration.

Mr. G. Jeger: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being allowed to answer Questions at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Pickthorn: I should have been allowed to answer more if there had been more Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND, BECHUANALAND AND SWAZILAND

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what were the terms of the 1909 agreement, upon which the United Kingdom Government agreed to consider the possibility of a transfer of the High Commission Territories of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland to the Union of South Africa.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The history of this matter is fully set out in the White Paper (Cmd. 8707) published in December, 1952, to which I would invite the hon. Member's attention.
The South Africa Act, which was prepared by a National Convention in South Africa in consultation with the United Kingdom Government, contained provision for the possible eventual transfer of the administration of the Territories to the Union, subject to terms and conditions embodied in the Schedule to the Act. During the passage of the Act through the United Kingdom Parliament, pledges were given by the Government of the day that Parliament should have the fullest opportunity of discussing and, if it wished, disapproving any proposed transfer of these Territories and, also that the wishes of the inhabitants would be ascertained and considered before any transfer took place.

Mr. Johnson: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, and bearing in mind the satisfactory reply given by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, may I ask whether the House can take it that Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland will not be transferred to the Union of South Africa without the consent of the Africans who dwell in those territories?

Mr. Foster: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a Question on this matter and I cannot go beyond or depart from the terms of that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT LEVY (YIELD)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) the yield from the transport levy during the final quarter of the financial year 1953–54;
(2) on how many A and B licences, C licences and Government and municipally-owned vehicles the transport levy was charged during the final quarter of the financial year 1953–54.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): From the beginning of January to the end of February this year the yield from the transport levy was £3,425,000. It is estimated that a further £50,000 has been collected during March, making a total for the quarter of £3,475,000. Figures are not available of the total number of vehicles or the number hi any class on which levy has been charged.

Mr. Davies: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the figures he has given show the gross unfairness of this levy in view of the fact that up to now only 10 per cent, of the vehicles have been sold and that about 1¼ million vehicles are being taxed to meet a loss on 3,000 vehicles?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. It was the intention of the Act to start to raise the levy from the beginning of this year.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but is it not a fact that £3 million has been paid on these vehicles simply to cover the loss on a mere 3,000 vehicles?

Mr. Molson: I do not understand what is unfair about beginning the annual levy as soon as the Act comes into operation. It is quite likely that all this money will be required.

Mr. Davies: Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the sale of vehicles has been such a complete failure—only 3,000 out of 30,000 having been sold in 12 months—that the levy should be abandoned?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir, certainly not. I do not agree that sales have been unsuccessful. In any case, when he refers to the number of vehicles which have been sold the hon. Gentleman should remember that we are still in the early stages of the sales.

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the original list issued in the form of a White Paper and the speeches of the Minister on the subject to see how far they have departed from the original estimate of the yield of this levy?

Mr. Molson: I am willing to look at any estimate, but we are entirely satisfied with die way in which the levy is going at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENSIVE EXERCISES, BAHAMAS (CUBAN REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Cuba about the bacteriological tests to be held near the Bahamas; and the nature of his reply.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): On 31st March, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Havana was handed a Note expressing the Cuban Government's concern at the Press announcement of Her Majesty's Government's proposal to institute defensive exercises against bacteriological and biological warfare in the Bahaman area. The Cuban Government asked for any available information regarding the exercises to enable them to take proper precautions.
On my right hon. Friend's instructions, Her Majesty's Ambassador replied on 12th April that in no conceivable circumstances could the tests have any effect


in Cuba, whatever meteorological conditions obtain; and that the Cuban Government might rest assured that no precautions need be taken by them.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister explain why defensive activities of this kind are necessary in the Bahaman waters? Is he aware that there appeared in the French newspaper Le Monde, and several other newspapers, a statement that these are exercises in which we propose to experiment with methods of warfare involving the spreading of typhus and plague and other infectious diseases among the civil population of the world? Does not the Minister think that this is a particularly execrable form of international warfare in the relinquishment of which this country might give a lead at this time?

Mr. Nutting: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper, which asked what representations were made by Cuba and what reply was sent to those representations. I have given an answer to that Question but, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, all these exercises are for purely defensive purposes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the anxiety of the Cuban Government, and, no doubt, other Governments, can the Under-Secretary assure us that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as part of the plans which we are to lay before the Disarmament Commission of United Nations, to put forward proposals for the total abolition of bacteriological warfare, and controls that will make that abolition effective?

Mr. Nutting: That is a very much wider question than the one on the Paper. So far as representations from other Governments are concerned, we have only had representations from the Dominican Government about the exercise.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Surely the hon. Gentleman can tell us that this is a part of the settled policy of the Government.

Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the settled policy of the Government is to get an all-round, balanced and properly supervised system of disarmament. Bacteriological weapons will, of course, figure in that all-round system.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman leave out of account altogether the fact that for many years

there has been a Geneva Convention, to which this country is a party, against this type of warfare, and that there has been, so far as anyone knows, no breach of that Convention—at least by anybody who ever ratified it—in 20 or 30 years? In view of that, would the Undersecretary say what purposes are to be served by these experiments, bearing in mind that, while everybody accepts his statement that they are purely defensive, that statement is made by every country in the world about every type of armament it employs?

Mr. Nutting: I do not leave out of account the factors to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, but we cannot leave out of account either the possibility that some country, some aggressor, might resort—

Mr. Silverman: Only America.

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman says, "Only America." In that case, he is a complete and utter dupe of Communist propaganda regarding the war in Korea.

Mr. Silverman: No.

Mr. Nutting: I have said that we cannot leave out of account the possibility that some aggressor might start this hideous form of warfare first. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Government to see that the necessary defensive precautions and exercises are taken to guard against such an eventuality.

Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I am not the dupe of anybody's propaganda? My reference to the United States of America was only a reference to the plain, admitted fact that of all the countries in the world the United States of America is one of the only two which, so far, have not ratified that Geneva Convention?

Mr. Nutting: That is a very different thing from the hon. Gentleman's previous interruption, which suggested that the United States had used this form of weapon.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that I said no such thing. I have never said, either this morning or at any other time, anywhere, that anybody had ever used it—the


United States or anybody else. What I said was that if the United States used it that would not be a breach of international law as far as they were concerned since they are not parties to the Geneva Convention.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Under-Secretary to impute most improper motives to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? Should not he be asked to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: I heard no improper motive imputed. If there is a definite charge, I will consider it. I have generally found that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is quite capable of standing up for himself.

Mr. Silverman: May I say, Sir, that I never regard it as unparliamentary to accuse another Member of being the dupe of somebody's propaganda. Indeed, I think that the Joint Under-Secretary is himself in that position.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the Russian Government announced in 1939 that they were very well prepared to take part in bacteriological warfare if anybody should start it? Since it is known that a large number of Governments have made preparations, it is perhaps right at the present stage to make defensive counter-preparations, but that does not relieve the Government of the imperative duty of proposing the total abolition of this form of warfare, with effective guarantees which will be observed.

Mr. Nutting: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is for that reason that the Government are seeking to get an all-round disarmament system which would, of course, include these weapons.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed these questions to go on for some time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The original Question was mine, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The Question starts with a query as to what representations have been received, and that has been answered. I do not think we should expand that into a discussion on bacteriological warfare.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The Minister referred to further diplomatic representations which appear to have been made by another Government. Arising out of that, may I ask what was the nature of the representations?

Mr. Nutting: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question to that effect on the Order Paper I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (BRITISH AND U.S.A. COMMITMENTS)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. E. FLETCHER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now inform the House of the precise proposals made by Her Majesty's Government to the European Defence Community Governments for further military commitments by this country on the continent of Europe; and what further commitments have been proposed or undertaken by the United States of America.

Mr. DONNELLY: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding a British contribution to a European army.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher: May I first ask a question on a point of order? These Questions were on the Paper on Tuesday. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, put a Private Notice Question which was answered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have no doubt that it was generally convenient for the House that the statement about the additional British contribution to E.D.C. should be made yesterday, but I think that a good many hon. Members had previously understood that if Questions on the same subject were already on the Paper that normally ruled out a Private Notice Question. Would you be good enough to give your Ruling and to indicate whether, in future, there will be some departure in certain cases?

Mr. Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. When the Leader of the Opposition yesterday


submitted his Private Notice Question I had observed the Question for today standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). My first reaction was that that would rule out the possibility of the Leader of the Opposition asking his Question, but on reading the hon. Member's Question I found that its contents, though similar, were not identical with the Question put down by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member is asking for precise proposals made by Her Majesty's Government for further military commitments by this country, and it struck me that the Leader of the Opposition was asking about something different from proposals. He was asking for the terms of an Agreement which it was common knowledge had been made.
As the hon. Member will understand, a proposal is like an offer which, if accepted, becomes a contract. It struck me that the subject matter of the Question by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, dealing, as it did, with a concluded Agreement, was different in substance from the Question of the hon. Member which deals with proposals. On this ground I allowed the Leader of the Opposition to ask his Question, but the rule remains unchanged.

Mr. Fletcher: May I say that I am not in any sense complaining, Sir. I think that the whole House will be most obliged to you for what you have said and for clarifying the position. I am sure it will be of use on future occasions.

Mr. Nutting: The answer to the two Questions is as follows: I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House yesterday, and to the reply which he gave to a supplementary question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Fletcher: Now that we have had an opportunity to consider the statement made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether we may assume that in the event of the United States Government not undertaking to make a similar and comparable commitment to leave on the Continent of Europe American forces of comparable size and for the same length of time, in association with E.D.C., Her

Majesty's Government will be free to reconsider the commitment which they have undertaken?

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend made it plain yesterday that the commitment was related to N.A.T.O. The undertaking which is given is to place at the disposal of and under the command of an E.D.C. corps a British armoured division so long as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe considers that to be a necessary arrangement. That is, of course, without regard to any outside commitments or further commitments which the United States Government may undertake.

Mr. Awbery: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that the United Nations organisation is in existence and is liable to die unless it is used? Will he refrain from entering into commitments either in Europe or with the United States unless it is done through the United Nations, which was established for that purpose?

Mr. Nutting: The commitment, as I have already informed the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), is under N.A.T.O., and, as I think the whole House accepts, there is nothing inconsistent or incompatible whatsoever between N.A.T.O. and any of the defence arrangements to which Her Majesty's Government belong or which they support in Europe or anywhere else, or the United Nations organisation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is past 12 o'clock, and I am forbidden by the Order of the House to take Questions after 12 o'clock.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have now given a Ruling which seems to depart from previous practice in this House, which is that once a Question has been taken before the time of conclusion of Questions it is in order for supplementary questions to be continued after that hour? That appears to me to have been the common practice in the House in the past.

Mr. Speaker: We are working under a special Order passed by the House yesterday with regard to today's proceedings, which says that no Questions shall be taken after 12 o'clock. Although I allow a little latitude for a few seconds


this way or that, I feel bound, after the Order of the House, not to continue further and thus deduct from the time which is open to Private Members for their Adjournment Motion debates.

KENT WATER BILL

Mr. Bottomley: Might I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which affects Members of Parliament representing consituencies in the county of Kent?
The Kent County Council promoted a Water Bill which was supported by all Members of Parliament. It then went to another place with a recommendation from this House that there should be a Joint Committee to consider it. The purpose of having a Joint Committee was to save the ratepayers of Kent the extra cost otherwise involved.
I now gather that in another place the decision to have a Joint Committee has been renounced and that there are to be two Committees. It would be possible for me or any other hon. Member to object when the Bill returns from another place, but in doing that we should defer the Third Reading of the Bill, which we desire. I should like to know whether it is possible for elected Members of this House to safeguard the money of the ratepayers in the county of Kent.

Mr. Speaker: All I can say to that is that the setting up of a Joint Committee of both Houses requires the consent of both Houses separately. In the circumstances, as the other place has not agreed to a Joint Committee, there is nothing more I can say. The same result might be the case if a Joint Committee were proposed in the other place and rejected in this House. The proposal requires the free concurrence of both Houses before such a Committee can be set up.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]

DENTAL TECHNICIANS

12.4 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: On 6th April I addressed a Question to the Minister of Labour and another Question to the Minister of Health in connection with the dearth of dental technicians in the country.

Mr. Charles Pannell: They used to be called mechanics.

Mr. Winterbottom: The National Joint Council for the craft of dental technicians decided in 1947 to alter the description after a royal battle about what they should be called. Therefore, I must correct my hon. Friend in that respect, and I must call these people by the description which they themselves have chosen, which is that of dental technicians.

Mr. Pannell: They do the same work as the dental mechanics used to do. Do they get more pay because they have a better-sounding title?

Mr. Winterbottom: I am afraid not. Their duties relating to prosthetic treatment are much wider than in the days when they were called dental mechanics.
My Question to the Minister of Labour asked for the number of dental technicians who were then employed compared with three years previously. The Minister of Labour said that he regretted that the information was not available. I can well understand that reply. I understand that the Minister of Labour has, in terms of statistics, the whole of dentistry grouped together, and, therefore, in his records dental prosthetics, dental nurses, dental receptionists and even dentists and dental surgeons themselves are part and parcel of a whole collection of dentistry, and he cannot segregate the branches.
On the same day I put a Question to the Minister of Health asking him whether he was aware of the loss to the craft of dental technicians of numbers of highly-skilled dental technicians and what steps he proposed to ensure that that trend would not destroy the possibility of having a comprehensive dental service. I received the following reply:
I am not aware of any loss of dental technicians likely to lead to a serious difficulty


in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 31.]
I quarrel with that reply. It conveys that the Minister does not know very much about what is happening to the craft of dental technicians, or it is a very impolite way of telling me that he could not care less, or it may be that he neither knows nor cares about dental technicians. I hope that the matter which I am now raising, the employment of dental technicians in the National Health Service, will inspire him and the Parliamentary Secretary to give it the fullest possible consideration.
The problem is that large numbers of highly skilled dental technicians are now unemployed. Figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) on 16th April, 1953, indicate the situation since the cut in the dental services about two and a half years ago. In reply to my hon. Friend, the Minister of Health gave figures relating to applications for dental treatment during the last three months of 1951 and the last three months of 1952. They related to applications to the Dental Estimates Board by which applications have to be approved before treatment is given and appliances are provided. The reply showed that there were 42,000 fewer applications in the three months 1952 in compared with the corresponding period in 1951. This indicated that there were 160,000 fewer applications for dental prosthetic services in 1952 than in 1951.
Although it is difficult to got official confirmation, I believe that this decline was intensified in 1953. These figures are such as to cause distinct alarm, because, in effect, they show that dental health is now at a discount. They also reveal a serious situation of unemployment in the highly-skilled branch of dentistry—the craft of dental technicians.
In the absence of official figures—and that is why I began by referring to my Question to the Minister of Labour—I have to fall back on facts and figures collected in my own investigations and those of my trade union, and I may say that my trade union represents the whole of the dental technicians throughout the country, with the single exception of London. The following are some of the figures to which I would call the attention of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary.
In Preston, in 1949, 39 dentists were employed—and I am now speaking of dentistry as it was as a result of the 1921 Act, and including both dentists and dental surgeons, as well as others. In addition to the 39 dentists in Preston, there were four laboratories for the profession of making dentures, and that meant, collectively, a total of 36 dental technicians. There were also 27 apprentices. In 1953, there were 27 dentists, one laboratory to the profession, 14 dental technicians and 10 apprentices, which represented a loss of nearly 60 per cent, to the craft. This is the direct result of cheeseparing within the National Health Service in respect of the dental services.
We now have highly-skilled men out of work, and I call the attention of the Minister to this fact, because seemingly, in his reply to my Question, he was completely ignorant of it. I could go through most of the towns and cities of this country and show that there has been a loss of technicians. In Bournemouth, the loss is 50 per cent.; in Coventry, 15 out of 29 technicians have lost their jobs; in Dundee and in Hull, the loss is also 50 per cent. The situation is the same in Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham and in Scotland.
I should like to call the hon. Lady's attention to an extract from the "Yorkshire Evening News," of Tuesday, 11th November, 1953, in which it was stated that Mr. Frank Drew, secretary of the Leeds branch of the British Dental Association, said:
In some cases, dental workshop staffs have been reduced by half and even three-quarters. It is said that some of these highly-skilled people were compelled to find work in other walks of life. In some cases, they have become milk roundsmen, in others fish and chip shop proprietors and things of that description.
These occupations are honourable in themselves, but when a person has been trained in the craft of dental technician, I think there is some obligation on the health service of this country, and particularly the dental health service, to provide him with something in the nature of permanency in his employment. Mr. Drew also said:
I know of travellers in dental supplies having to give up their work because of the serious falling-off in business. Large numbers are having to develop side-lines.
The situation in the whole of dentistry is in line with that concerning the dental


technicians, although I am speaking in the main for the dental technicians. The effect of the cuts in the dental service have not only been to create unemployment amongst dental technicians, but, in so far as they do that, they also create a loss of work to dentists and to all those ancillaries in the dental profession, and consequently affect the dental health of the country.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady has primed herself with any of the history of this craft, but we have to remember that this is a highly-skilled job, and if one wants proof of that statement, one has only to refer to the examinations which take place in respect of the craft of a dental technician. Very intense practical and theoretical study is imposed on a dental technician for a period of five years before he can be looked upon as being even in the initial stage of craftsmanship. Though I am not a dental technician myself and have never been directly concerned with the profession, I remember, as a trade union organiser actively associated with the National Joint Council for the craft of dental technicians, having had something to do with the rather elaborate and very effective schemes which were capable of real development from the point of view of dealing scientifically with dental health.
At that time, we had effective schemes of registration and apprenticeship. I want to tell the hon. Lady that it takes at least five years to teach a dental technician the rudiments of his job in terms of both practical and theoretical knowledge, and even then I have never known a technician with only five, six or even 10 years' experience who was very proficient in certain types of work, particularly ceramics.
I ask the hon. Lady whether it is wise, right or good for this country that we should have men who have been trained to do this highly scientific and technical job facing the dangers of unemployment, with a consequent loss to the dental health of the country? These people are necessary to dentistry. There are dental surgeons and dentists who came in under the 1921 Act and who know something about appliance treatment, but very few of them have the necessary time to do the highly-skilled work in the workshop or laboratory. It takes a lot of time to teach

them extraction, X-ray work, remedial treatment, orthodontics and things of that kind, and they just cannot devote long hours to this painstaking work, which is wholly dependent on the dental technicians of the country.
These are some of the conclusions which have already been arrived at by fully representative bodies in this country which have made a study of the problem, and I should like to call attention to the fact that an Inter-Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Teviot, pointed out the absolute necessity of dental technicians developing their craft to a very highly organised degree in order to be of the fullest service to the dental profession. That Committee not only deplored the insufficiency of dental technicians in 1946 or 1947, but, as a result of their excellent report, the craft itself advanced both technologically and in other ways. Tremendous advances have been made in the efficiency of the craft, but all this is now going to waste.
Today it would be very unwise on the part of any parents to apprentice a boy of 16 as a dental technician, because they would be placing him in a blind alley job. After five years' apprenticeship, in most cases, they are taken into the Army, and when they return from the Army they are dependent on their craftsmanship pay at the lowest rate. They find that they have six months' work, which the Army guarantees, and then they are pushed out into the street. The result is that many dental technicians serving in the Army never come back to the job for which they were trained, and that the highly-skilled, scientific experience they acquired in five years' training, as well as the money spent on it at places like the City and Guilds of London Institute, is wasted. While they are protected to a certain extent, very few of the technicians who are now employed in the laboratories, or by dentists and dental surgeons, are just out of their time. Only the older craftsmen are now employed. Those who have finished their time and have done their Army service find that there is no prospect in the craft. They are being dispensed with as fast as possible and are having to find other jobs.
What will happen if this country develops a dental health service, as it should? We shall be back in the position which existed in 1945 or 1946, when there


was a shortage not only of dentists and dental surgeons but a grievous shortage of dental technicians. We must remember that many dentists are going out of the job as well.
I wonder whether the Minister cares. That is suggested by his reply to me a week last Tuesday. That is why I have raised this matter on the Adjournment. I called his attention to the very serious situation in respect of dental technicians and asked him to examine the position and see what could be done. It is wrong that modern society should say to highly-skilled craftsmen, "You are redundant these days, when scientific dental health is progressing at such an increased tempo."
The debates on the 1921 Dental Act proved that dental prosthetics are an integral part of dental surgery. So accomplished were these dental technicians in 1921 and so able to do their job that they were recognised in the 1921 Act to the extent that for 12 months they were allowed to enter the profession of dentistry. The dental health of the community demanded it.
When we have a dental health service in this country, we shall need both dentists and craft technicians who can do the work required, yet we are losing the skill of the people on the prosthetic side. I hope that the Minister will look urgently into the matter and protect this craft, which must not be wasted. We must take care that the people who have spent time and money studying the prosthetic side of dentistry do not do it in vain and that their highly-skilled services are not lost to the community.

12.25 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I have a long and abiding interest in this subject. It arises largely from the conception of the dental health service that I have, and the vital part it can play in the ordinary life of the individual. I have long wanted to see a thoroughly satisfactory dental health service.
Even at the time of the passing of the National Health Service Bill, I made it my business to bring to the attention of the House the part that these dental technicians, these prosthetists, might be able to play in a nationally-organised dental service. I was fortified at that time by

the Minority Report of a Royal Commission which advocated that the dental service should be treated on all fours with the medical service.
In exactly the same way as a doctor examines a man with a damaged limb, finds out what the patient requires and then sends the patient to a skilled man, the dentist would treat the patient who required artificial dentures. The dentist ought to be able to pass the patient out as fit to receive the dentures. Then the prosthetists, about whose highly skilled craftsmanship we have just been hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), would be able to deal with the case, just as the fitter does with an artificial limb.
I look at the matter from that point of view because I understand the position with regard to the supply of dentures. Dentists were very scarce in 1946 and were quite unable to cope with a comprehensive dental service. Looking at that dismal failure, I came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to bring certain other skilled people to our aid so that the dentists we had might be able to do the more important work.
The job of the dentist, in the view of many of us, is to prevent the decay of the natural teeth and to preserve them for as long as possible. Owing to the shortage of numbers to which I have referred, the dentists could only contemplate dealing with the enormous job of a dental service if they were helped out by ancillary workers, who could get on with part of the job. I had the pleasure the other day, in company with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, of seeing this job being done by hygienists now in training. They should be able to deal with some part of the work relating to children. I hope that scheme will prosper, and I wish it the greatest success.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the point made by my hon. Friend that here among the prosthetists is another type of ancillaries to the dentists. The skill of this body of men ought not to be lost, and we ought not to be in danger of losing them from the profession owing to lack of work.
There is every case for a very careful inquiry into this matter. We realise that when the charges were introduced, there was a temporary setback to the service


and that the number of people applying for artificial teeth diminished considerably. We realise that, but we do not suppose that such a state of affairs will persist. Indeed, we are very hopeful that people will again come to realise how important it is to rid their mouths of poisonous teeth and to substitute for them clean, hygienic artificial teeth which are nearly as good as those with which nature provides us.
It is the declared policy of the Labour Party that when returned to power they will remit the charges so that the people who need these things will be able once again to receive the complete service which they require. It would be a tragedy if we allowed ourselves to drift into the same situation with regard to these dental technicians as we have in regard to the dental surgeons themselves.
I know how interested the Parliamentary Secretary is in this matter, and how anxious she is to help. I can sympathise with her in so far as the dentists are a very highly organised body of people who are naturally loth to lose any of the privileges which they enjoy. But I ask the Minister to consider the needs of the nation rather than the needs of this small section of the community, and to consider carefully whether it would not be possible to set up an independent inquiry into the whole question in order to see if it is possible to utilise these dental technicians within the framework of a comprehensive dental service and thus enable us to make up for the lack of qualfied dental surgeons Which threatens the efficiency of the service.

12.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) for raising this matter, because there are several points which require clarifying. While I appreciate the very real and sincere concern felt by the hon. Gentleman for members of this profession, I simply cannot accept many of the allegations he has made. I hope to be able to answer some of them in the course of the debate.
The Ministry of Health recognises the importance of the work of the dental technician, which is to fabricate or to repair

dentures or other dental requirements to the prescription or design of the dentist. It is a skilled and important job, and we fully recognise that it is essential to the National Health Service, although in only a very few cases are we in direct relationship with that service.
The majority of dentists come under the general practitioners' service and the dental technician is not directly employed or paid by us. Payment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is made direct to the dentist who employs or contracts with these men to do this technical work. Therefore, the Ministry as such has no control over the entry of people into this profession, nor, in the main, any control over their direct employment. I think that should be made clear, because from what the hon. Gentleman has said it might easily go out from this House that these people are directly contracted or employed by us and that we have far more control over their option to enter the service or over their employment than, in fact, we have.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I readily agree that most dental technicians are employed in private practice. There are also the dental laboratories which, in the main, serve private practice in the country. The services in the hospitals are distinct and separate. I agree with all that. Probably 95 per cent, of the dental technicians are employed in private service, but my point is that the cuts in the National Health Service are directly responsible for the resultant unemployment among these skilled people. That, surely, is the responsibility of the Ministry, even if the dental technicians are actually employed in private practice.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, I am ready, and I hope effectively, to answer that point.
I think it fair to make plain at the start that these technicians are, in the main, privately employed by individual dentists and laboratory companies. They are trained in private workshops under apprenticeship agreements drawn up by the National Joint Council of the dentists and the trade unions concerned.
The real problem—and I say this quite frankly—is that we believe that at the present time there are more dental technicians than work for them to do, and


I think that a fairly dispassionate study of the figures of people who entered the industry would prove that.
In 1948, 437 people entered the industry and applied for apprenticeships. In 1949, that number increased by 768 to 1,205. I think any dispassionate observer would agree that unless abnormal conditions were to continue, that tremendously increased number of people could not possibly anticipate full and continuous employment.
In 1950, owing to the immediate and high demand, five million dentures were supplied under the National Health Service. At that time, a large number of the apprentices were not sufficiently trained to be able to do this work, and, therefore, at the highest peak of demand, there were probably fewer dental technicians than in later years when the demand decreased.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that a jump in the numbers from 437 to 1,205 in one year, an addition of nearly double the existing number in 1949, is such a tremendous jump that any practical person must recognise that there are now more trained dental technicians than can reasonably be provided with full employment on this specialised work.
The hon. Gentleman made a great point about the charges, but I think it fair to remind him that those charges, which accounted for the most dramatic drop in demand for dentures, were imposed by his colleagues. I want to be fair about this matter, but I do not think that without the charges the level of 5 million dentures—the number supplied in 1950—could possibly have been maintained. In 1953, the number of dentures supplied was 2 million, and I think that this figure will represent the average annual demand.

Mr. Winterbottom: Mr. Winterbottom indicated dissent.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree. I think that that will probably be the level for some years. I hope that it will get steadily less. I do not agree with the hon. Member that if the service is a success we shall need more of these people. Rather, I think that if it is a success it will mean we shall want fewer because we want people to be encouraged to look after their teeth, to keep their own teeth longer, and to require fewer dentures. That is our goal.
The hon. Member's forebodings as to the numbers of dentures provided are not, in fact, substantiated by the figures which I have here. He himself gave a figure of 346,000 in the last quarter of 1952. In the last quarter of 1953 the figure was 380,000, and in the first quarter of 1954, 394,000.

Mr. Winterbottom: Can the hon. Lady give corresponding figures? Can she give me the figures in terms of corresponding periods? I used October, November and December of 1951 and 1952. As there is something in the nature of a seasonal effect in this, one gets a better indication by using corresponding figures rather than periods which do not correspond with the term I used.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman used October, November and December, 1952, and gave the figure of 346,000. I have given him the figure of 380,000 for the last quarter of 1953. I do not know what he is grumbling about. The latest figure I have, naturally, is for the first quarter of 1954–394,000—so the figures are getting better and not worse.
There is also the very reassuring fact that, as a result of the treatment charges which were imposed by the present Government, there has been a vast increase in conservation work, particularly with children and adolescents. That bears out the very determined policy of my right hon. Friend, which is that, as far as we possibly can, we should save people's teeth, and bears out the priority he wished to give to children and young people. I cannot accept the accusations made against my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Brightside, that my right hon. Friend desires either to cheesepare on this service or that he could not care less. In reply to a Question put by the hon. Member on 5th April, 1954, my right hon. Friend said:
I am not aware of any loss of dental technicians likely to lead to a serious difficulty in the future."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 31.]
In other words, my right hon. Friend is convinced that there is an adequate number of technicians to deal with the situation. I do not think that there is anything unfair in his reply or any could-not-care-less attitude in any way. I think that the hon. Member was less than just to my right hon. Friend's very


real concern for the service. We acknowledge the fact that there was this great inflation in the numbers of apprenticeships, and we say, quite frankly, that we do not think the demand can absorb that number.
As regards technicians directly employed by the hospitals and local authorities, there are between 200 and 250 employed in the hospitals. All except about 80 are in the teaching hospitals. They have been less affected by the reduced treatment. The hon. Member will know that under the amending Act, 1952, the Minister, if he was satisfied that it was expedient in the interests of dental training to remit the charges for dental services at training hospitals, was empowered to do so. That has been done at eight dental teaching hospitals.
At the present time the Whitley Council is drawing up an apprenticeship scheme with reference to the training programme provided in hospital and local authority laboratories to see that there is comprehensive training, that the facilities are adequate and the staff sufficiently technically qualified. It is not for us to say, but I am quite sure that that body must also have considered in its calculations the number of apprentices whom it is practicable to train and whom in the future it will be possible to absorb into this industry.

Mr. Winterbottom: Under the National Joint Council, of course, there is a restriction.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is a matter for the Council and is not within our control.
Generally speaking, this matter is one of supply and demand. Our goal is first, preservation; secondly, repair; and, as a third and ultimate stage, the replacement of natural teeth. I cannot accept the attitude of gloom of the hon. Member, which seems to be almost as if the goal of the dental service should be that people should have artificial rather than real teeth. Our goal is to see a lessening in the need for dentures. I say, quite frankly, that there will be no dramatic drop in present levels. That is because of the increasing years people are living—and they are getting older. There is also the increase in population. I therefore do not think there will be any

dramatic fluctuation around that annual demand of two million-odd.
There were one or two points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Peck-ham (Mrs. Corbet). I do not know whether she is aware of the fact, but I think she may find herself in conflict even with her hon. Friend. She made some far-reaching proposals. She suggested that the dental technicians should be permitted to do prosthetic work. That, I believe, has been rejected by the very union which her hon. Friend represents.

Mr. Winterbottom: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) was suggesting that dental technicians should have access to the mouth and should do prosthetic work? It is true that the union of the dental technicians has rejected the idea of approach to the mouth by dental technicians, but said that they should concentrate on the craftsmanship side. That, of course, includes one thing which the hon. Lady has not taken into consideration, which is appliances for children's teeth.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is not disagreeing with me but rather confirming what I said. Under the Dentists Act, 1921, the performance of dentistry is limited to registered dentists. That, at the present time, includes the fitting of dentures. I do not propose now—and I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—to go into that highly controversial topic of whether or not there should be any extension there. She will be only too well aware of the controversy that arises on that point within the profession. I must say that to authorise dental technicians to fit dentures would be not only contrary to a very considerable body of opinion in this country—including many dental technicians themselves—but contrary to the practice in many other countries where we accept that they have established a very high standard of dentistry.

Mrs. Corbet: The hon. Lady is aware, of course, that there is quite a body of opinion among dental surgeons themselves that this work can be done adequately by the dental technicians without any harm to the patient. I am suggesting that it really ought to be looked at because, apart from the shortage of


dental surgeons, I maintain that dental surgeons should be employed almost entirely on the work of preservation.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think that the hon. Lady and I are really in disagreement on this. I know how very wide is her interest in the dental service generally, and how great is her desire to see dental standards raised in this country. But whilst we have a shortage of dentists and a backlog of work to deal with, I think that my right hon. Friend has been more than justified by the results of putting the priority on conservation—we have seen the figures mount—and ensuring that there is certainly an adequate pool of technicians for the work likely to be available.
I am sorry that I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman any cast-iron assurance that it will be possible in the immediate future fully to employ this inflated number of available technicians. It would be unfair and unrealistic not to tell the House exactly what the true position is. I do not think we can ever anticipate a demand like the demand that immediately followed the introduction of the 1948 Act, but I would say that my right hon. Friend watches all these matters very closely. His responsibility is to see that there is the machinery by which the dental health policy can be carried out.
The numbers are available—alas, more than are necessary are available—but we do not feel that removing the charges would necessarily increase the number of pepole requiring the treatment which the hon. Gentleman anticipates. Nor do we believe that it would be correct policy to reverse the present trend of conservative treatment and, at considerable expense to the Exchequer, put the accent on dentures as opposed to conservative treatment. There is ample conservative work for any dentist at the present time. It is not a case of the dentist being denied employment because of the charges; there is ample work to be done. Therefore, we feel that the priority to which I have referred is right and proper.
While I have every sympathy with those members of this profession who entered in the peak year of 1950, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that the demand for dentures will grow to anything like the peak figure, nor will it be possible fully to employ the large num-

bers of people who have taken this training, beyond what I believe is necessary to comply with the normal law of supply and demand.

NYASALAND (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)

12.52 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: To many people in this House and, indeed, outside it, Nyasaland is a little far-off land at the southern end of the Great Rift Valley in Africa. It contains some 4,000 whites and 2 million or more Africans. But you, Mr. Speaker, and I know better. Nyasaland is the land of Livingstone, and its history began on that day, 16th September, 1859, when David Livingstone first gazed on the waters of Lake Nyasa. In those days it was a smiling land, but in subsequent years, at least until the 1890s, there were many wars and troubles, and the foul commerce of slave dealing did much damage to the land until the Pax Britannica.
I have always had an urge to go to Nyasaland. My own people went there over 40 years ago. It is a beautiful land. Some call it the Switzerland of Africa. I look forward to the day when it will perhaps be almost like Switzerland, a tourist country, if we can develop it and open up the inaccessible parts and introduce a tourist industry in the beautiful highlands of Mlanje and Nyika which are so beautifully portrayed by Laurenz Van der Post in his book "Venture to the Interior."
When I was last in that country following my Kenya delegation visit, I found that the people there, whatever their colour, felt that they were somewhat forgotten and that their difficulties and complaints were seldom heard in the House of Commons. Therefore, I take a particular delight today in mentioning some of their difficulties and their hopes for the future. I heard with joy that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is himself going there in a few days' time. Since my return from Central Africa, I have asked a number of Questions and I have had answers, some satisfactory and others not so satisfactory. But now that the Secretary of State is going there to meet the Africans at the Nyasaland Congress, and to talk to the white settlers, I think that we may see a move forward in the affairs of the Colony.
One of the things that disturb me is the large number of able-bodied men who leave this beautiful Colony. I think something like 180,000 of them go as cheap labour to the Rand mines and to Southern Rhodesia. I need not enlarge upon the social and other evils and abuses which result from this. These able-bodied men are leaving their wives, their tribes and their villages, with consequent disruption in domestic and tribal life and lack of manpower to combat soil erosion and to maintain the land as a viable economy.
It is a thoroughly unhealthy thing that so many men leave their native soil. I hope that today we can have some indication of some development schemes that might help to anchor this manpower in its own country. I know that the Nyasa is a nomad, almost a gypsy, and that travel is in his blood. Incidentally, the 1st Nyasaland Battalion were the first colonial forces to enter the war, in Abyssinia, and the last to leave, in Burma. They have a wonderful record both in commerce and industry, and in time of war. Many of them, like the Chinese, send money back to their families, a form of invisible export, but it is not good for the country that so many of them should leave.
May I turn to the subject of agriculture? I should like to pay a tribute to the white pioneers who have gone there in the last half century. They have introduced coffee, cotton, tea and tobacco—the latter two being the major crops at the moment, and particularly tobacco. I should like to ask a question about tobacco. I know that the tobacco that is grown by the African and is cured in what, I think, are termed pit barns—they have over 70,000 of them—is not quite the same quality as of the Southern Rhodesia tobacco. But I have talked to white settlers—white Africans, I suppose one could call them—who have flue-cured tobacco, and particularly at the C.D.C. farm at Karonga. Their flue-cured tobacco, which is good, somehow or other does not seem to get a square deal in the Salisbury wholesale market. It does not sell so easily as the Southern Rhodesia tobacco, although I gather that it is equally good in quality. I should like the Minister to look into that question.
I now want to ask a question about cotton. I gather that the climate is quite suitable for cotton, that there is a cotton marketing board, and that efforts are being made to develop cotton cultivation in the Central Province at the southern end of Lake Nyasa. Could we have some information about that? It seems to me that when there is a bad tobacco year, or if it does not do well in world markets and the price falls, cotton would be an excellent standby.
I should now like to move to the Northern Province, because I am told that soil and climate there are not unlike Tanganyika. We have already begun coffee cultivation there. One of the types of coffee produced is at Nchena-Nchena. I believe that the Tanganyika Coffee Board have accepted their coffee at between £450 and £500 a ton. Could not some encouragement be given to the African coffee farmers in the Northern Province where there is neither land hunger nor over population? I see no reason why in the future, as with the Chagga peoples in North-East Tanganyika, we could not develop a healthy and paying African peasant farmer co-operative coffee industry.
The tea industry is the most important industry in the Southern Province. That is where the bother begins. Twelve months or two years ago there was trouble and disturbance at Cholo and the Shire Highlands. This is the only part of Nyasaland where, as in Kenya, there is anything in the way of a white population, land hunger, and a heavy density of native African population. Unlike Kenya, however, instead of a large number of white settlers, there are at the most only 300 or 400 white farmers. The majority of the land—over one million acres—is owned and cultivated by six major tea companies. One is the Livingstone Bruce Estate and another is the B.C.A. Company.
The experience I gained on my short visit has been confirmed by others who have been since and before, and by Africans with whom I have talked. The bulk of the land is owned by these six large companies. About half a million Africans work there, and there are many more living there as tenants. In 1952 the companies which owned the land put up the rents to their tenants from £1 to £2 12s. 6d., which is a lot of money for


an African peasant. I could quote from special reports of United Nations commissions, which give the personal incomes of peoples in dependent and backward territories, such as Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Kenya. In 1945, the personal income of an African in Nyasaland was £3 10s. per annum. I do not know the most up-to-date figure, but even if it is as much as £6, £7, or £8, the sum of £2 12s. 6d. is quite a large proportion.
The system of tenancy is complicated, and it would be too academic to enter into a discussion of its rights and wrongs now. All I would say is that when the white settlers arrived there some 50 years ago they found, as in Kenya, large areas of the territory which were quite bare of population. Slave dealers had operated there in the past and the population had been dissipated and decimated. I have checked the facts very carefully, and it is apparent that in many cases the native chiefs received only a few bolts of cloth in return for the land which the white settlers took over. It is a debatable argument whether what are termed certificates of claim, given by Sir Harry Johnston to the white settlers, constitute what we should regard as title deeds. The Africans have always argued that the white settlers are not lawfully and legally entitled to some of the land which they now farm.
Another source of irritation arises from the fact that the tea plantations are doing very well. No one will complain of that. Tea is now 3s. 10d. a lb. wholesale, and that works out at £580 a ton. I wish I had a few shares in some of those companies. The point is, however, that if the tea industry is doing well and wants more and more land for tea cultivation, the African tenants are evicted as the tea plantations expand. There is no security of tenure for the African tenants living on the periphery of these plantations. That is a source of annoyance, which gave rise to disturbances in Cholo and other places 15 or 18 months ago.
I do not want to weary the House with many quotations, but I should like to refer to the reports of some of the commissions which have considered the question of land ownership in Nyasaland beginning with the judgment of Mr. Justice Nunan, in 1903. Without being

too long-winded, I can say that nearly all these judgments and commissions tend to come down on the side of the Africans.
In 1924 the East African Commission—then known as the Ormsby-Gore Commission—said:
We cannot but regard it as anomalous that in Southern Nyasaland (the Shire Highlands) the machinery of Government is being used to impose on native residents claims by landowners to rights which are, prima facie, not included in their titles, while such claims are not enforced in North Nyasaland and are excluded in North Rhodesia.
The Abrahams Commission investigated the situation when Mr. Barnes was the provincial commissioner of the Southern Province. I want to add a personal word of thanks for his hospitality, and also to say how much he is looked up to by the African population in Nyasaland. They have a great regard for the wise advice he has given in the past. When the provincial commissioner gave evidence before the Abrahams Commission, he said:
The main cause of discontent among natives of private estates is the fact that they object to the regimentation to which they are subjected. They are constantly being chivied by estate owners and they have very little security regarding either their houses or garden lands.
That seems to be the main issue. It is bad enough for their rents to be doubled or trebled, but it is the lack of security of tenure which the Africans have so much on their minds. Sir Sidney Abrahams said that there were three main questions which should have immediate attention, and that is why I am so glad that the Secretary of State is going out to investigate the conditions in the Colony. Sir Sidney said that these questions were:
First of all, the economic problem of the relief of congestion on these native lands, secondly, the political problem of satisfying the sense of grievance that Europeans are holding large tracts of undeveloped land while natives are suffering acute pangs of land hunger.
The African is bound to feel a sense of grievance if he sees land which is owned by a white immigrant population not being fully utilised.
If this land is not being utilised, I and many more feel that the Government should step in and buy the land and, under wise Government invigilation, let it out to African peasants. I understand that this has been begun, and that about


300,000 acres have been scheduled. I should like to know how much has been taken over, how much has been taken up by African peasants, and what has happened since the Abrahams Commission went out there. I did hear that Her Majesty's Government offered 7s. 6d. an acre for this land and that the companies were a little tough in their bargaining, thinking that they were still in a capitalist economy, and that we finally had to pay 12s. 6d. an acre. This is a little harsh, and I should like to have a little light cast upon that matter.
I am told that the companies are selling unutilised land to white immigrant farmers. This is not a desirable step. Any unutilised land should be parcelled out to the Africans who live there. I know that all the Africans in the area are not indigenous peoples. Many of the Africans are natives from Portuguese territory who have come in, Anguru peoples who have come in over the Portuguese Mozambique border. They can be and often are a nuisance. Many white settlers are very disturbed about the careless farming of the Mozambique Anguru natives, their cutting of timber and the consequent soil erosion. Can the Minister say what control there is, if any, over the entry of the Anguru peoples out of Mozambique into our own territory of Nyasaland? I should like to know also what are the wages of the African labour employed on these European estates, and what is the value of any rations they get in addition to the money wages they are paid.
I come to the very important question of education. If the Africans are to play a larger part in the agricultural and economic development that we want, they must be better equipped for the work. My general impression of education in Nyasaland was not a particularly cheerful one. It is typical of the African educational scene. Mainly the schools are mission schools. Perhaps less than half the child population, of children from five to 18, ever pass the doors of a school. There is little secondary education. There is enormous wastage in the lower classes in the schools. I understand that there are only two secondary schools in the Colony, with a total number of pupils of perhaps not more than 140 or 150, and amongst them very few girls indeed. As in most parts

of Africa, less attention is paid to the education of girls and women, and much more attention ought to be paid to that aspect.
Under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act in 1952 some £90,000 were allocated for a third secondary school at Dedza, to be for secondary and technical education, but I am informed that there are not more than 40 or 50 pupils there. What is to be the future of that school? The future of technical education in Africa is so very important.
We were to open also in 1952, under the Colonial and Development Welfare Act, a junior trade training centre at Blantyre. I did not have time to look into that, for I spent my time on the tea estates, talking to African Congress leaders and looking into African housing. I understand that it is to be begun next autumn. That is a very important development indeed, but I would stress, in addition, the need to amalgamate or concentrate the teacher-training establishments. There are a number of small, inefficient establishments, and I suggest that they should be amalgamated into one or two well-equipped teacher colleges. The only one I would term first-class is the Jeanes Training Centre. In 1951–52, out of 20 high-grade, qualified teachers in the whole Colony, that centre supplied 18. I should like to see more done about that.
Africans have a burning desire for education, particularly informal adult education. I think we have to get off the orthodox lines in this respect. I hope that when the University of Salisbury gets going there will be extra-mural education. Why not an institution on the model of the Scandinavian folk high schools? In Nyasaland we have an agricultural society and a deeply religious African society based upon the teachings of Livingstone and the Church of Scotland. It would be desirable if the Government paid the salaries of the staff of this High School, as the Governments of Sweden and Norway do in their countries, leaving the staffs independent inside, and with a bias in the syllabus towards agriculture and religion. I think we could well proceed along the line that Archbishop Grünther developed in Denmark in the 'eighties and 'nineties of last century.
I was a little disturbed to hear it said that the Governor, Sir Geoffrey Colby,


is not as keen as he might be on development schemes. Is it correct that the Domasi community development scheme is not being helped as much as it could be? Someone told me a short time ago what I hope is not correct, that the community development scheme is ceasing. It would be a scandal if it did. I hope that the contrary is true and that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will be able to say that we shall press on with that development scheme even more than in the past.
Let us consider for a moment some future schemes of economic development. The scheme which will put the Colony well upon its feet is the Shire Valley Scheme. Sir William Halcrow and Partners went out in May, 1951. About £150,000 was voted for the initial hydro-logical survey and the like. If this scheme gets going, it will be an enormous boon to the Colony. It is not the first scheme of its sort in Central Africa, but I place it second in importance only to the Kafue Gorge Scheme, and higher than the Kariba Gorge Scheme because it will develop more than water power and electricity. It will mean assisting the people in Nyasaland in their agriculture, and will of course assist land settlement, particularly where there is acute land hunger, as in the Shire Highlands.
I am delighted to hear that the Portuguese are helping, and I think we should link up more with the Portuguese and with the Belgians, too, in economic developments in this part of Africa. Our territory here is land-locked, and it would be beneficial if we could develop as much co-operation as we possibly can with the Portuguese so as to be able to get the produce out to the Indian Ocean.
To safeguard food supplies, the Government began the Nyasaland Farming Corporation, and I should like to know how its farms are doing. Are they being extended? I think there are three or four farms.
I am a little bothered about the C.D.C. Earlier I spoke about the opening up of this country, not merely for tourists, but for all others, too. The only way to do it is by first-class communications. I met a man only two nights ago who has been for many years in Central Africa. He was very disturbed because of the lack of good roads and the lack of future development of them. We want many

more roads there than we have, not only to open up the hinterland for travel but to enable us to get out the tobacco, and cotton, and all the other produce of the territory. What is to happen about the C.D.C. scheme in Nkata Bay? It was to build some miles of road along the western shore of Lake Nyasa, in the Northern Province. I gather that the C.D.C. went to some expense to get a depôt going in the hope that there would be lucrative contracts with the Government. I understand it is to be wound up. It seems to me that with C.D.C. in the territory, it should have more co-operation from the Government in getting on with the job of building better communications.
I have some figures here which shook me, and they may shake the Minister in this matter of roads if I give the bare statistics. I am told there is a large scheme of road building scheduled for between 1951 and 1955. There needs to be, because when I look at the 1952 Nyasaland Report I see that in the territory there were only some 11 miles of main roads with full width tarmacadam carriageways, and only 19 miles have been or are being constructed with a bituminous surface 12 feet in width. The other 4,000 miles are typical African highways. I would plead, therefore, for some injection of energy into that road-building programme.
My last point about economic development concerns the coalfields in the North. There are extensive seams of coal near Livingstonia in the North, and the seams appear to be the same geological strata as those in Tanganyika on the other side of the lake. What is happening there, because I think we ought to have some information about it? Coal there would be of inestimable value in that part of Africa, if only we could exploit it commercially.
May I close with a few sentences about the Central African Federation Scheme? That issue is finished now at Westminster, and I have no wish to open it, any more than the Minister desires to talk about it. I told the people whom I met out in Nyasaland what was the mood of Her Majesty's Opposition and of the Labour Party on this matter, but there is still a deep suspicion in some Nyasaland African minds of federation. Let me hasten to say that the Africans appreciate what can be the possible economic


benefits of federation, but they are still disturbed about the Southern Rhodesian and the Union's native policy. I did my best to dispel any doubts they had, but we must not have any foolish talk by the white community out there.
I have here a statement made at the annual meeting of his tea company by Mr. H. R. Gardiner, chairman of Nchima Tea & Tung Estates, Ltd., Cholo, who, in addition to his annual statement, sent a letter to "Time and Tide" in which he mentioned many things with which I have dealt, but I could not help but notice the tone of his speech, which I found was very much the tone of many speeches made out there, which was that the more that Nyasaland matters go over to the federal body the better. I was also disturbed to find some people, who may have been tea planters in Assam and who have come to Nyasaland in the last few years, talking in arrogant terms of amalgamation. We do not want any foolish talk of that kind to disturb African opinion. It seems to me to be foolhardy for 4,000 white people to think that they can dominate and control indefinitely 2½ million Africans or that they should want to be away from the control of the House of Commons and away from the vigilance of Her Majesty's Secretary of State. To advocate such things does not help matters at all.
In this connection I have had a letter from Mr. Manoah Chirwa, M.P., who is one of the elected representatives for Salisbury in the New Central African Federation, and this is what he tells me. I hope that the if the Minister is not able to answer me now he will inquire into this matter. Mr. Chirwa says:
We are greatly hampered in our freedom of speech and of assembly. Last Sunday, 21st March, we held a Congress meeting in Blantyre in the presence of two uniformed policemen taking notes. This is British democracy in Africa! Is it any wonder that our people are losing faith in British principles of justice and their form of Government? We have protested to the police, but can you get it raised in the House of Commons? We should be most grateful.
He goes on in the same vein.
I hope we shall have a better atmosphere than that, and that if the African Congress wishes to have meetings to discuss and debate perfectly legitimate matters for consideration, it will have the opportunity to do so. There is still

a deal of suspicion there, and it is our job on both sides of the House—it is not a party matter any longer—to develop a better atmosphere and get federation going. I have said in Salisbury and I have said here that federation can succeed if both sides pull together, but time is running out. It may be that this is our last chance.
There is an enormous legacy of good will among the Africans towards the white population. Men like Livingstone and many others since have helped to create that legacy and we have got to improve on their performance. There is only one African on the Zomba Town Council and only an African Advisory Council at Blantyre. I should like to see more Africans chosen to take their place both in municipal and in national affairs. I want to warn the Government seriously and sincerely that unless we get a better political climate and unless we attend to the land and other questions, I am convinced that the recent disturbances of Cholo will blow up again in the highlands.
This is not, as I say, a party matter and I just want now to add my last sentence. There is yet in Africa, it is my feeling, the idea that the European is an exotic and alien feature upon the African landscape. He has not been accepted as coming to stay by the black, indigenous people of Africa, and unless we work out a partnership together—the Bishop of Mombasa gives Kenya five years and some people give the Union two years—we shall call down upon our heads the curse of those who come after us.

1.27 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), when he asked for this Adjournment debate, was aware that the Secretary of State was going to Nyasaland in the near future, but in any event that certainly has both advantages and disadvantages. It has, first of all, the advantage for us of having been able to listen to the views of the hon. Member this morning. He covered a very wide field, and when the Secretary of State goes to Nyasaland he will bear in mind all the important points which were raised.
There are also certain disadvantages for me in that it will not be possible for me to attempt to give detailed answers to some of the points which he raised, although I will try to touch on them in my comments on his questions over this very wide field. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a good thing that we are discussing Nyasaland this morning. I do not believe it has been defeated for some time. I, having visited it myself, can endorse all that he said about the charm of that country.
But Nyasaland is not, and never can be, a very rich country. It is not rich in mineral resources, although there is some exploration going on. It has primarily an agricultural and forestry economy. In the past this reliance on agriculture, and, in particular, on a small number of agricultural products, has caused instability in the revenues and this has been the source of many difficulties in Nyasaland. The main economic crops are tobacco and tea, with tung and cotton in addition. In the past the revenues of the country have fluctuated according to the ruling world prices for those products.
It is this instability and weak economy which has led to many of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, such as the inadequacy of educational facilities. However, the help which Her Majesty's Government have given through the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund of no less than £3,872,000—a large sum in proportion to the size and economy of the country—has greatly assisted. We can congratulate ourselves that things are much improved. Exports of agricultural produce from Native Trust land have increased from 10,000 tons in 1948 to 65,000 tons in 1953 and from £1½ million worth in the first year to £4 million last year.
There has also been a great expansion in forest activities, and the Forest Department is devoting special attention to reafforestation. There is not much in the way of manufacture, although cigarettes and tobacco are manufactured and there is a local soap factory. These things are being borne in mind, and what steps can be taken to develop that side of the economy will be taken.
We can look forward to an increasing rate of economic development in Nyasaland now, especially in the light of the new Federation. We cannot tell exactly

how federation will affect Nyasaland financially until we see the budget for the first financial year which begins on 1st July. We know, however, that the Governor is reckoning on a modest surplus in the first year of federation instead of the large deficit which he would have had if there had been no federation. It is clear that in future Nyasaland revenues will no longer be based solely on a precarious agricultural economy, and this will lead to a speeding up of development, to increased prosperity, and to the possibilities of improved social services. This should be compared with the position a few years ago when, simply because there was a simultaneous fall in the price of tea and tobacco, or because there was a crop failure, there was a complete standstill of all development in the Colony.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the coal deposits at Livingstonia. I do not know if he has visited it, but everybody up there was well aware of the possibilities. In a speech on 1st January, talking about the effects of federation, the Governor said:
What can we expect and hope for under federation? Primarily I would suggest, stable budgets.
That is what I have referred to already. Then, referring to the object to which loan capital might be devoted, he said:
I should place the further investigation and exploitation of our coal deposits at Livingstonia very high on a list of priorities. The supply of coal to this territory is a constant source of anxiety …
So I think the hon. Gentleman can take it that this is very much in the mind of the Government of Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Johnson: I gather that there are no technical difficulties and that the coal can be exploited in thickness of seams and so forth.

Mr. Hopkinson: I have no details but, generally, the Government are well aware of the importance of this matter. The hon. Gentleman asked me about wages and I have here specimens of the monthly agricultural wages paid to Africans in 1952 which include food allowance: field labour, 25s. to 30s.; overseers, 30s. to 100s.; factory workers, 28s. to 40s. In addition, bonuses were paid in tea and tobacco. The Nyasaland Government are paying great attention to the question of African wages.
While we are still on the question of the economy, the hon. Gentleman asked me about cotton and coffee. As regards cotton, 10,000 bales were produced last year and, in the same speech to which I have referred, the Governor said that cotton was one of the most important factors in the economy of the territory. As regards coffee, I saw small developments of coffee co-operatives on the way up to Livingstonia. I met the director of the co-operatives in the Colony and found him most enthusiastic over his job, though it is only on a very small scale at present.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked me about Portuguese immigration. I regret that we have no details as to the Regulations but, as he knows, immigration will shortly become a federal subject and I have no doubt that the Federal Government will give this question their full attention.
The next important question with which the hon. Gentleman dealt was that of land. As everybody knows, land is the crux of almost every problem in Africa south of the Sahara, and it is so in Nyasaland, too. Of the total land in the Protectorate, 5 per cent., or less than 1 million acres, is held as freehold land, but there are about 200,000 Africans living on privately-owned estates. The most serious land problem arises in the congested area of the Southern Province, where most of the European estates lie. There we find a conflict of interest. There is no doubt that, when the estates were taken over, the land was sparsely inhabited, but since then there has been a natural increase in the population, as well as immigration from Portuguese East Africa, and the existence of the estates has attracted more labour. This has given rise to the kind of grievances which led to the riots in Nyasaland last summer and which we all wish to avoid in future.
As the hon. Gentleman said, African grievances arise from the fact that Europeans hold large tracts of undeveloped land where they are living; and, unlike their friends and neighbours on African Trust Land, the Africans here have to pay rent. They do not understand it; but, on the other hand, the European landlord is convinced, and I think rightly, that under the Natives on Private Estates Ordinance he has a legitimate right to charge rent or to demand work. So

there we have a conflict of interest and, also, to some extent, of understanding.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Abrahams Report and to its recommendations. As a result, a planning committee was set up to consider how the recommendations could be implemented, but the committee found that there was no clear-cut solution of this problem on the lines indicated in the Report, and recommended the acquisition by the Government of 545,000 acres of estate land, The Government have since bought 300,000 acres of this land. The hon. Gentleman asked about the price of 12s. 6d. an acre. It was carried out as a business proposition; offers were made on both sides, and that was the figure finally agreed.
The Secretary of State has already said in Parliament—and I made it clear in reply to a Question yesterday—that we do not consider the present position in regard to land in Nyasaland satisfactory. My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the Governor about it. He is going out there to investigate this and many other questions personally, and we hope that his visit will lead to some fruitful results. Meanwhile, I should much prefer not to have to attempt to make any detailed pronouncements on land policy in Nyasaland. We are well aware that the problem exists and that it remains a potential source of trouble in many ways. I should not, however, wish to suggest that it will be easy of solution, because it has troubled successive Governors in Nyasaland since 1890.
The hon. Member touched on the question of education. As far as the Government secondary school at Dedza is concerned, there were 73 pupils at the end of 1952 of whom about 40 were engaged on engineering, and the others on academic studies. The school is small and is one of very few such schools. Lack of funds has always been an anxiety in regard to all these matters. The technical education adviser made recommendations after his visit in 1951. These recommendations and his plan for providing for the technical education and training of young persons employed in Government Departments and industry who have attended full-time courses at the school are under consideration. Another difficulty besides lack of funds has


been that of finding in the United Kingdom a vice-principal for the school who is qualified to carry out the proposed development.
The hon. Member referred also to a trade school in the Blantyre area. This is being proceeded with. The principal of the school has been appointed, and the buildings of the old agricultural school at Mpemba, which are no longer needed, are being taken over and modified for a school for the building trades. A start is being made with a course of training which provides for 24 pupils a year for a three years' course, followed by a two years' period of training at the nearby P.W.D. works, where there are courses for fitters, mechanical and electrical engineers, and so on.
The hon. Member referred to the new university and to the fact that all higher education comes under the new Federal Government. Hon. Members will have seen in "The Times" this morning a reference to the arrangements for the new university college to be established at Salisbury. I think it has become clear in Nyasaland that there is a need for something between the secondary school and the university, rather on the lines of the hon. Member's suggestion, although not with quite the Scandinavian flavour that he attached to it—something rather higher than a straight sixth form school course, and falling short of the full university course. Certainly this need has not escaped the attention of those concerned. The fact that the hon. Member has raised the question in the debate today will help to bring it to their notice again.
The Domasi development scheme certainly has been a good scheme. It was a pilot scheme and its object was to try on a very small scale to teach Africans to do certain things. Everybody will admit that it has done very good work, but there comes a point when one must consider whether it is worth while to carry so many extra administrative and technical officers and others on so small a piece of ground; whether it is not, perhaps, a luxury to do this rather than to leave those people where they might be doing the same job in areas where they are badly needed. I am not saying that the scheme has to be closed down, but the matter has to be considered from that point of view.
We all attach great importance to the Shire Valley project. The cost of the survey of £400,000 will be met partly by Colonial Development and Welfare contributions, and the Portuguese Government have agreed to pay one-third of the cost. I have no doubt that the scheme will be of great advantage to the inhabitants of Nyasaland. The question of priority has already been debated in the new Federal Parliament, and the Kafue scheme is to come first. Whether the Shire Valley scheme should come before or after the Kariba scheme would depend on many factors, including cost.
On the question of road development, the engineering and road building depot at Nkata Bay, to which the hon. Member referred, was set up because it was expected that remunerative road building work from the Government would be given to the Colonial Development Corporation and that they would be justified in setting up the depot. They did not, in fact, get the work. They decided to cut their losses and to close the scheme. But the Government, with the help of a Colonial Development and Welfare grant, have bought all the road building plant and are going ahead fast on road building throughout the territory, a matter to which they have paid particular attention in recent years. It is notable that of the £3,872,000 Colonial Development and Welfare money, over £1 million has been devoted to road development in Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Johnson: Why were the C.D.C. depot and equipment not used for road building schemes when they were there?

Mr. Hopkinson: That is what happened indirectly. They have been merged, and the Government have taken over the machinery. It may be a matter of opinion as to who does this kind of work best.
I have covered most of the points to which the hon. Member referred. The House will be grateful to him for raising this question.

Mr. Johnson: May I have a word from the Minister about Mr. Chirwa's meeting in Blantyre? I quoted his letter, in which he said there had been policemen at his meeting. As I said, he was a Member of Parliament in the National Assembly at Salisbury.

Mr. Hopkinson: That is the first I have heard of the meeting and of the presence of police. In my own constituency of Taunton, I am quite accustomed to having large numbers of policemen attend my meetings—to keep the crowds back. If, however, there is a matter of complaint in what the hon. Member has said, I will see that it is laid before the Governor and dealt with in a proper way.

Mr. Johnson: Thank you.

HOME COUNTIES (LONDON OVERSPILL POPULATION)

1.48 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want next to call attention to some of the problems which arise from what is rather inelegantly called "the decanting of London's overspill." I regret the necessity of detaining my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon when he might otherwise be beginning a rest that is particularly well earned in view of the pressure under which his Ministry has been working during the Session.
My hon. Friend will be aware, as most of us are, that anxiety is becoming manifest, not among the prospective London overspillers, but among those into whom it is proposed to overspill. It is inevitable that, as these plans take shape for London's overspill and the implications for the rural districts become appreciated, these anxieties should tend to grow. It is important at this juncture that as far as possible we should give such assurances as we can to those who are beginning to feel these anxieties.
I must declare my interest in this matter. Ashford, the principal town in my constituency, was one of the first tentatively to accept the proposition whereby, in the course of the next 10 years, it is provisionally agreed to accommodate 15,000 Londoners in about 5,000 houses as part of the development programme. I should attempt to add a personal view, but I confess that I find great difficulty in doing so. When one is told—as I have been told, and as, no doubt, I shall be told by my hon. Friend—that this is an essential contribution to a pressing social problem, one is very reluctant to oppose it. On the other hand, as a countryman, all one's instincts are against it.
In my lifetime I have seen my county suffer more than most other counties from a growing, and not always very well organised, urbanisation. I have a very natural and strong reluctance to accept a further instalment of that now. Moreover—and I will be quite frank about this—if one opposes the idea of London's overspill, one is liable to be told that political motives are the principal reason. But the prospective loss or gain in votes—which some study of the subject leads me to suppose is negligible to either side—is the worst of grounds for supporting, opposing, or indeed judging this development. There are much greater things at stake. I add this.
If one is to accept this idea, one needs to be convinced that it is absolutely essential and convinced on the latest available information. Further, one needs to be convinced that it will be done in a manner which will minimise the very considerable risks in the social, industrial, or agricultural fields and, particularly, in the field of full employment, which this plan entails. If the London Development Plan is to go through, it will have effects on the home counties and the counties beyond and certain conditions must be fulfilled.
It is the duty of any representative in one of the reception areas, to see that those conditions are fulfilled, no matter how unpopular that may be, or how unreasonable he may appear to be. I must add that I am not entirely convinced by the arguments of London County Council. One accepts that the council's figures are very largely guesswork. They amount to a guess that between 300,000 and 400,000 Londoners must be accommodated outside London in the next 15 years, in new towns, or developing towns. I could add that in the next five years the figure must be 40,000 if the development of London is to be made possible. We are told that as London County Council will have reached the limit of building on its own land within the county in 1956 and, if there are to be no further raids on the Green Belt, as I agree, the population must go elsewhere and either new towns or development towns must receive it.
The figures put forward on behalf of the L.C.C. have been stated with some exactitude. They imply that London's population is a static factor. It is nothing of the kind. Although exact requirements


have been laid down for London's emigration there is no physical control in fact—I think the London County Council admits this—over London's immigration, that is to say, the number of people coming into London. This strikes me as very serious. There is no certainty that at the conclusion of the 15-year programme, when 400,000 Londoners, or whatever the figure may be, have been accommodated elsewhere, the pressure of London will have been relieved to that extent. There is no guarantee of that. London is still the commercial and industrial magnet. Although what we call the inner ring has become greatly depopulated in the last 20 years, it remains a considerable industrial magnet.
Although I would accept, nationally, that there is a strong case for absorbing surplus, ill-housed London population elsewhere, I would consider it intolerable if such a movement were to take place on a triangular basis whereby London filled from the Midlands, the North, or other industrial centres and then found it necessary to throw its surplus into the countryside, which would be principally the countryside of the Home Counties. That would be not only industrially extravagant, but demographically absurd. If one is to accept the need for this emigration one is bound to ask for some assurance on the future of immigration and what control there will be over it.
These plans were conceived originally when building was very much more strictly controlled and the movement of the population could be very largely planned on paper. Under the impetus of the work of my right hon. Friend, at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in the last two and a half years, there has been an immense change in the situation. Quite apart from slum clearance, which has a great bearing on the problem, a very large measure of freedom has been restored to the private builder, and increasingly through this the private builder will shape the future movements of the population and correspondingly less by a plan, whether a central or county plan. I would ask whether these very considerable alterations in the last two and a half years have been reconciled to what was planned before. Are we to understand that the programme for new towns and developing towns which was laid out on paper now nearly a decade

ago, is quite unchanged by the new circumstances my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have done so much to create?
When we come to the question of adjusting population moves to industry, we come up against more solid and much more serious considerations. My hon. Friend will agree that it is imperative that when fresh population goes from London, industry—permanent industry—must go with it, and roughly at the same pace. I cannot speak for new towns, as I have no new town in my constituency, but in the developing towns there is considerable and growing anxiety about this industrial factor. The industrial side of this development problem might be not only in the hands of another administration, but of a rival administration than that which is responsible for the London overspill plan. I hope that my hon. Friend will not gloss over the point, because it is very important.
I am well aware of the work his Ministry have done, in particular in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour. Since May, 1953, there has been what is called an industrial selection scheme designed to match London families willing to leave the Metropolis to prospective employment elsewhere. It is an elaborate and complex scheme about which some authorities are anxious. It might well be said to me, "Produce a better scheme, if you can." I could not and, therefore, I do not propose to criticise it. But the industrial selection scheme is not the fundamental issue.
The fundamental issue is, what industry will people who leave London be getting? That will depend on two things; first, the attitude of the companies themselves, and, second, the attitude of the Board of Trade. Not one or two but three Government Departments are involved in this business. Up to quite recently, the Board of Trade has had quite different priorities, first, Development Areas; second, those areas which are near Development Areas; third, new towns; and fourth, developing towns.
The latest information which I have received from the London County Council as to how this programme is working out is really most disquieting. A question was asked last month in the L.C.C. from which three facts emerged. In 1950, under the London Chamber of Commerce scheme, questionnaires were


sent out to 7,000 of the 28,000 firms in London. There were 1,622 replies, 159 firms expressing their willingness to move out of the county and 135 willingness to move within the county. In 1953, these figures were revised. Out of the 159 firms I had mentioned, 39 expressed their unwillingness to move after all and 33 expressed their willingness to go. Thirty firms were then interviewed, of which four had abandoned the idea, five had in mind only long-term moves, seven had moved already and 14 were still interested.
Those are the latest available figures I can get. That is a most disquieting problem for those of us in developing towns who are going to depend on industry to make the plan work. Bearing in mind that the amount of industry needed to give employment to the 300,000 people who are to leave London is in the region of £50 million that is pretty ominous. Until there is a radical change in that position and outlook, certainly in the outlook of the Board of Trade, it is surely exceedingly wrong to go forward unthinkingly with a development plan on this scale.
I lay down, as priority No. 1, that before there is any move of population on this scale there must be a reasonable assurance of employment, not only for the emigrants but for the present occupants, who would be affected were there to be any serious industrial dislocation. Present planning in this industrial field leaves a great deal to be desired. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend says in reply. In my view, central planning is now out of step with industrial trends.
I warn the Government that they may face here a major issue of policy in another sense—whether they should construct, with Government capital, in the reception areas, factories which will then be leased at encouraging rents. There have already been suggestions that that should be done. If the industrial side lags too far behind the development side they may find their hands forced and be compelled to think in those terms, which will be a serious matter indeed.
There is also a minor problem, indicating that far too little thought has been given to the implications of what is being done, which demands an urgent solution.

I refer to the disposal of industrial premises affected by firms leaving London. As matters stand, the chances are that the factories evacuated will be immediately reoccupied because for technical reasons into which I shall not go it is almost impossible to dispose of such premises in any other way. But the whole object of decentralisation is thereby defeated.
To turn to London's own problem, I hope that the Minister will say something about the density figure—past, present and future. I think I am right in saying that the present density figure in many areas means that the slum clearance programme will itself create a considerable surplus of population. In other words, as slum clearance progresses, only about 60 per cent, of the population can be rehoused. That is the average, although there are exceptions to it. In the light of that, and in view of what I have already said, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the present densities are sufficient? Is he satisfied that there can be no increase in density in respect of South London, which I think offers certain prospects rather different from those in other parts of London? Is the density as high as it reasonably can be there? Is my hon. Friend prepared, as I hope he is, to have another look at this aspect of the matter before the County of London plan is finally approved by his right hon. Friend?
To sum up, I recognise that from my hon. Friend's point of view there is a degree of urgency about this matter. There is also a degree of finality about it because, once development begins, there will be no halting it in the lifetime of those now affected and in the lifetime of several generations to come.
I realise that in this matter my hon. Friend will feel that all forces are opposing him in seeking space for the immense programme of house building which he and his right hon. Friend have undertaken. I feel the opposite. I feel that all forces are in favour of development. The compulsory purchase order has become the reflex action in a large number of Whitehall Departments to all such problems. If one lives in a rural district, particularly in the Home Counties, one feels that the dice are loaded against those who seek to preserve the countryside and agricultural land.
I do not wish to go into the question of agricultural land; that has been fully discussed in the House. I would just add that, for every acre of agricultural land which is sterilised by development through industrial and development areas, two more acres are paralysed by the prospect of such development. In other words, from the point of view of farmers who are contemplating capital outlay, one can add two acres to every one sterilised.
A great deal of hard thinking and more open discussion is overdue on this subject; it should receive much more of both than it has received so far. There are many social problems involved apart from the constructional ones. Fresh communities cannot be constructed out of bricks and mortar. There are, in this prospective development of London and elsewhere, immense implications in terms of human lives and happiness. These will not be solved by the written words of the Town Development Act, 1952. There is need not only for fresh thinking but for continual vigilance.
I hope that this very important part of our rebuilding programme will not be overlaid by the many and urgent issues which crowd in upon the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. We all appreciate the burden of responsibility they bear, but none of those issues should overlay what I believe to be the most urgent and pressing problem. There are signs here of a need for a tighter hand on the reins. That is what I am seeking, and what I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance about this afternoon.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will not be unduly embarrassed if I say that he is a man of catholic taste. That is proved by the fact that whenever he submits a topic for such an occasion as this, it inevitably seems to meet with Mr. Speaker's approbation. I remember following my hon. Friend on a similar occasion last July when we were discussing the question of the shortage of water in both his county of Kent and mine of Sussex.
Today, we are discussing a flood, not of water, but of humanity which, if it is not checked, will completely overrun the whole of the Home Counties. This is

no new problem. Yesterday, I was reading through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading of the New Towns Act, when I came across the following sentences uttered by the then Minister, Lord Silkin:
My researches on new towns go back to the time of Sir Thomas More. He was the first person I have discovered to deplore the 'suburban sprawl,' and in his 'Utopia' there are 54 new towns, each 23 miles apart.
Incidentally, Sir Thomas More was beheaded. If some of us do not appreciate the danger of what will happen, not necessarily a year ahead, but in the next five, 10 or 15 years, we shall deserve the same fate.
I could give many other examples of this problem, which has always been before those who are concerned with these matters. Sir Ebenezer Howard wrote a book called "Garden Cities of Tomorrow," in which he advocated new towns to relieve congestion. In the Marley Report of 1934 and the Barlow Report of 1940 it was mentioned. In the Barlow Report there is an ominous sentence stating that 71 per cent, of the inhabitants of Great Britain exist in seven urban centres. That means that something like 35 million of our population are concentrated in seven of our urban centres.
Returning to Lord Silkin's speech, he ended by saying:
This is our last chance … the Government intend to carry out a programme for the planned dispersal of a substantial proportion of the population of London to areas situated 20 to 50 miles away, and there to create homes and work for the people so moved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1072 and 1076.]
That is a very admirable sentiment, and it has been further carried on by my right hon. Friend and by this Government in the Town Development Act, 1952.
I wish to draw attention to two of the provisions of that Act. One of them refers to the councils of small towns, described as "receiving districts." It lays on them the obligation to relieve the congested areas of London within a reasonable distance of them, even if such an action is not within their own interests. It also lays upon the Minister the right to give money grants if he is satisfied that such action will relieve congestion. That is the point which I wish to make. It was made by my hon. Friend, but I wish to underline it. I have a personal


interest in this matter in that the new town of Crawley is within my constituency.
I say at once that I think Crawley is a model new town. I do not say so from local loyalty, but I believe it is looked upon as being the best organised and run of the new towns which have come into existence under the New Towns Act. I have said this before, but I make no apology for saying it again. The agricultural people in my constituency made great sacrifices, in my opinion, in welcoming this new town, which is what they have done. I think they are entitled to ask the authorities of London, be it the London County Council or any other of the London authorities, to play their part in the bargain, because we do not feel that that is happening.
We have now nearly 20,000 inhabitants in Crawley which a few years ago was a small country town with 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants. We say that London should have depleted itself by at least that amount of people. We further say—having some 20 or 30 factories in operation today—that London should have reduced its factory area and thereby cut itself down by that amount. But all the evidence which has been so ably advanced by my hon. Friend goes to prove the opposite. We are afraid that, as we are receiving the export of population from London, so London is not taking the necessary steps—or at least, the necessary steps are not being taken—to prevent more people from coming into the London area.
It would not be fair, either to the countryside or to the new towns—or indeed, to the nation—if this kind of thing were allowed to go on. I believe it is not stretching the imagination to think a little wider than the shores of this country. The problems of the British Commonwealth and Empire have often been argued in this House and in the country. There are great countries like Canada crying out for new population. At the moment, unhappily, the population of Canada is increasing because of a flood of immigrants from various European countries—Poland, Germany, and so on.
I believe the Canadians would prefer to have immigrants of British stock. I suggest that someone of the genius of Sir Thomas Bennett, chairman of our

Development Corporation, should be invited by Her Majestys Government and by the Canadian Government to see if it is possible to start a new town, perhaps somewhere on the Great Lakes of Canada, where new and enormous development is taking place. That would take 50,000 to 100,000 of our people from the Home Counties and London. Furthermore, I believe it would give to those people a magnificent opportunity for the future.
There are immensely difficult economic and other problems, but I feel that they could be overcome. That is only one of the many solutions which may be applied to this problem. I welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend who advocated a tighter hand on the rein. Agricultural land is being absorbed right and left, mainly because there are too many authorities, many of whom have not enough responsibility. These vast numbers of London's population are being placed in various territories. Recently there was a suggestion that a large number could be placed on the borders of Dorset and Hampshire. When they go there, I understand they pay their rents to the London County Council—

Mr. Henry Brooke: No.

Mr. Gough: My hon. Friend says, "No." I understood they did. I believe that the ratepayers of London would be responsible for any subsidy in this connection. I may be wrong, but in any event they are, as I understand it, the overspill population of London.
When one is dealing with and talking about town and country planning, there is one fact which should always be remembered. It is all too easy to plan country into town, but once we have done so, it is impossible to re-plan town into country.

2.18 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on raising this exceedingly important subject and also upon the clear, moderate and well balanced manner in which he did so. I am sure he will not object to one who represents a London constituency taking part in this debate, because we are all in this problem together.
I cordially agree with his criticism of the policy followed by the Board of Trade


from 1946 onwards, a policy of almost complete non-co-operation with what had been agreed by everyone else to be a desirable objective, that of decentralising industry from London and other overgrown cities. The Board of Trade might argue that they had a statutory duty towards the development areas, and that until they were released from that duty they could not trouble much about the home counties and other places to which the overspill of London's population might have gone. If we are to tackle this problem at all we must, however, as an early priority, achieve a policy which is being implemented not only by one or two Government Departments but by all.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend when he says that there must be reasonable assurance of employment wherever people are going out of a big city into a new place. That assurance must extend not only to the newcomers, but to the older inhabitants, also. I would add one or two more essential conditions. One is that we must not swamp existing communities. In my view, it is far better to start an entirely new community—such as it virtually happening in the new towns—than that such large numbers of people should go to a new place under the Town Development Act, that the "old stagers" become the few and the newcomers the overwhelming majority.
Further, I would lay down the essential condition that decisions in this matter must not be taken hastily and recklessly and regretted later. If that is what my hon. Friend means when he asks for a tighter hand on the rein, then I am prepared to agree with him, but I hope he will not mind my saying that, as there has been no town development so far in the two years during which the Town Development Act has been on the Statute Book, one can hardly say that things are outwardly moving too fast as yet. Instead of using such a phrase as "a tighter hand on the rein," I should rather suggest that the right plan would be to go over the course again together, to see whether we can all agree on a policy that seeks to reconcile all the various interests.
I am sure, from all I know of my hon. Friend's generosity of heart and his understanding of national and local problems, that he fully recognises that one

cannot put a ring fence round London or any other great city and say that everybody inside it must stay there. Before the war there were parts of London in-habitated at a density of up to 600 people an acre. Even now, there are large tracts which have a density of more than 300 an acre. I cordially agree with the County of London plan suggesting that 200 an acre is a sufficiently high residential density even for the central parts.
I do not dissent from the suggestion that the much lower density zone of 70 per acre in South London may need to be carefully examined. It may be that that should be raised to a slightly higher figure. I am expressing only my personal view. Even then, my hon. Friend must not suppose that thereby any great advantage will be achieved quickly in the absorptive capacity of London.
An alteration in density affects only those relatively small parts of a city which are due for redevelopment. One of the problems in London is that enormous tracts south of the river were built on towards the end of the last century, and during this century, at quite low densities; but those are houses which nobody would contemplate pulling down yet, to replace them by tall blocks of flats.
The London County Council has more than 50,000 families on its waiting list who are in category A of urgency. The conditions for category A are rather strict. Anybody who examined those conditions would say at once that those 50,000 families were in need of immediate re-housing. Ten thousand of them have had their names on the list for six years or more.
There is slum clearance to come, and then there are the other needs of London which cannot be left out of account. All of us believe that the playgrounds of old schools were too small and that when one is building new schools, or rebuilding old ones, it is desirable to give the children a larger open space around the schools. Everybody knows that some parts of London are woefully short of public open spaces. There are hospitals in London which must be rebuilt; if they are to be reconstructed as efficient modern units they will need more land, and that will involve the displacement of people who live in houses on the spot.
The very next subject which we are to discuss today concerns road traffic in and out of London. We are all delighted that the Government have sanctioned the Cromwell Road extension. But every scheme like that will displace numbers of extra families far whom new homes will have to be found by the London County Council or someone else.
Unless one is to impose a standstill on all these changes in London which we believe to be desirable for their own sake, the problem of finding places where the people can go must be faced. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that this is simply a balance of the various considerations. On the London County Council we have not let party politics enter into the matter. We have tried to find solutions that will be agreed by all members of the council, We have never sought to adopt an aggressive attitude towards the Home Counties or anybody else, and yet the London County Council cannot ignore the fact that it is within two or three years of the date when it will be bankrupt of land for housing development. That is the problem which my hon. Friends and I, from our different points of view, lay before the Parliamentary Secretary. We shall be exceedingly interested to hear what he has to say.

2.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for giving us a chance to discuss what he called the "overspill of London." With him I deplore the jargon which is used in planning. We "decant" people and talk about "overspill." We seem to be introducing alcoholic terms into the housing of the people.
First, I should like to deal with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), who has given great service in housing and other work both in this House and, for many years, with the London County Council. He speaks with expert knowledge of the problems involved. I should like to endorse two or three of the points which he made.
The first is that we must see that the spirit of the existing community predominates over the people who come to the expanded area. That will mean that most people in an expanded town should be in favour of the development. If we had too many people coming into an existing town, that might destroy the spirit and do harm to what was a happy community life.
The second point was about tightening the rein. He mentioned the difference between planning carefully and planning differently. I agree that, if we are to plan carefully, we should go into general development slowly, and proceed by evolution rather than revolution. We must not make the same mistakes as those made in the groundnut scheme. We should have a pilot scheme from which to draw experience and then we should act on that experience. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the danger of proceeding too quickly. He will take care to see that the work goes at a proper pace, so that we can learn from any mistakes that we make.
The third point was on the question of density. I shall deal with that later, but I would say that we have already looked at the question carefully. Since my right hon. Friend came to his present office, we have published a booklet which had a great success in the Press and of which a large number of copies were sold. In the booklet we emphasised that there should be greater density and showed how it could be obtained without amenities being lost to the inhabitants. We have demonstrated many types of layout in the booklet, and we are already carrying out experiments in two of the new towns to show people what can be done by way of intelligent layout and making good use of roads, services and so on.
I will deal with one of two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) before I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I join wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham when he says that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford seems always to be successful in securing debates on the last day before we go on holiday. I speak from intimate knowledge because I generally have to answer and I cannot


remember a holiday when he has failed to secure an Adjournment debate. I shall continue to hope that at some time he will fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham gave a historical survey of what people thought about new towns and expanded towns, but he did not tell us what the population of the country was at the times in question. If he looks at the population question, he will see what an appalling problem we are up against. In 1821 the inhabitants of the United Kingdom numbered 15,500,000. In 1851 the population numbered 22,250,000. In 1871, which is near the date about which my hon. Friend spoke, the population was 27,500,000. Today it is 50 million. That means that there are 23 million more people, all of whom must be housed somewhere. The magnitude of the task will be realised if one compares the increase of 23 million with the total population of Canada, which is very much less. My hon. Friend really must recognise that it is a difficult problem to house all these people in a very small island.

Mr. Gough: I was pursuing the same argument. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I said that the problem today is that there are 35 million people in seven closely-knit large areas. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marples: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
With regard to rents, the London County Council would not collect the rents in an expanded town but would probably make a rate contribution. The amount would be by arrangement with the authority receiving the people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was good enough to give me notice of some of the questions which he proposed to raise, and for that I am duly grateful. I wish to answer them in some detail.
He asked whether there would be enough industry to meet the needs of the expanded towns, and he attached great importance to that. He wanted to know what response there had been from industrialists, and whether the Board of Trade give the necessary priorities. He gave the priorities which he thought the Board of Trade were following. He also asked

what is happening to the vacated factories in London, which he said were a great problem.
We accept that it is absolutely essential to have industry to provide local employment in the expanded towns which are a distance from the exporting areas. It must be a balanced community where reasonable equilibrium is maintained between the house's of the residents, the social amenities, such as village centres and so on, and the employment. It is much better for the majority of the people to have employment somewhere near where they live than a long distance away. We accept that.
Towns which are approved for expansion have been or will be selected with close regard to the industry which is already there and the prospects of attracting industry to those places. I believe that I can take my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead with me when I say that it is not the intention of the London County Council to embark upon town development schemes without making reasonably sure that the necessary industry can be obtained.
That is the intention, and, if it is not being carried out, I shall be very glad to look at any case which my hon. Friend has in mind. I say that because my Department has had great success in introducing industries to new towns. In the early stages of the new towns there was considerable apprehension that sufficient industrialists would not go to those places. There were many debates on that point in this House in 1951 and 1952, some of which I had to answer. I believe that I shall take my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham with me when I say that we are successfully overcoming that difficulty and that the apprehensions no longer exist. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that.
The Board of Trade really does co-operate. It does not have the priorities which my hon. Friend mentioned. It has the priority of suitability of industry so that a balanced industry can be obtained in a place. Some large basic industry might be suitable for South Wales or a Development Area but be unsuitable for Ashford.
In Peterlee, which was erected to house miners, basic industries already existed but there were no light industries to employ the females living in Peterlee. What


we have managed to do there is to persuade an industrialist to erect a very handsome new factory and to bring over some of the most expensive American machinery, and the spinning of wool and rayon will take place there, which will give a great deal of employment to the females living there. The Board of Trade co-operated wholeheartedly to move that suitable type of industry to the place where it was needed. A very much more flexible policy in that respect has been adopted by the Government.
There is no guarantee that sufficient industry will be found to fill the towns to be expanded. Frankly, that would be impossible unless the Government began to direct industry. However, we have used persuasion and negative controls, and have not been without success. If my hon. Friend wishes to direct my attention to any area where he thinks there is not sufficient industry, I can promise him action. We will try to seek out industrialists to go to such an area.
In the expanded town programme we intend to move only in a small way so that we may see how it goes. Only a few schemes, probably not more than half a dozen, are expected to start within the next two years or so, and they will go ahead at a modest rate. The timing of each scheme will be closely related to the industrial prospects, and we shall try to keep housing and industrial employment in step. That is not always easy. Sometimes we get too many houses and not enough factories, and sometimes the balance is the other way round. We shall try to maintain the balance if we can.
My hon. Friend also referred to vacated factories in London. Frankly, this is an awkward question. My hon. Friend is right in what he says. In the past, when a factory in the centre of London had been vacated and the industrialist has gone to a new town or an expanded town to erect another factory, some other firm from the North has immediately stepped in and occupied the vacated factory. The only complete answer to that would be for the London County Council, or whatever authority was concerned, to buy every factory that became available.
That would be a very expensive process, and I doubt very much whether either the Exchequer or the local authorities could bear the charge because

generally speaking, the sites are expensive. Under the Bill which has recently been going through the House, the Government are now to provide assistance at a flat rate of 50 per cent. Hitherto in the County of London the rate has been only 20 per cent. To increase the rate of grant still further would simply transfer the cost to the Exchequer, and the amount would be too great. The only way is for the London County Council to buy up where it can afford to do so and so bit by bit get rid of factories in the wrong places.
In any case, not all industrial premises which are vacated in London are used again for production. Some are left vacant and some are used for storage or similar purposes. Thus, while the decentralisation policy is not being fully effective in the sense that a flow in of industry to London is not forcibly prevented, the flow in is not as great as the flow out.
I will give my hon. Friend an example of that to show what I have in mind. Thirteen put of the firms for whom we are building at Crawley have given up their London premises and the remaining three are being used mainly for storage. Of the 13 which have been given up, six have been re-occupied by other firms for production, three are unoccupied, three are being used for non-industrial purposes, and one has been bought by the L.C.C. and is being extinguished. That is a typical example of what is happening, and it shows that some progress is being made in central London, though it is not absolutely 100 per cent. I think I have dealt with my hon. Friend's question.
Now I come to the question of London's overspill needs. My hon. Friend asked whether the estimates of the L.C.C. are reliable. He asked what was to prevent the area filling up again after the overspill had gone out. What effect would slum clearance have on the amount of the overspill, and would private enterprise building alter the position? I will try to answer those questions.
The L.C.C. have worked out their housing needs in considerable detail, and they are given in the County of London Plan. They estimate that 40,000 families must be rehoused outside the council's area in the first five years of the plan alone, and another 200,000 in the following 15 years. These figures are arrived at


after allowing for the development during that period of all available sites in the county, including slum clearance areas to be dealt with on an increasing scale under the Bill which has just received its Third reading, and finishing off the out-county estates.
May I give an estimate of what they will do within the area? In the next five years, they will displace 20,000 families and rehouse 66,000 within the central area. In the next 15 years, they will displace 70,000 families and rehouse 100,000, so that they are going to rehouse more than they displace, because they are redeveloping thinly-developed areas, such as those with Victorian houses with large gardens, as well as densely-built slums, and they will make a contribution to that problem which will accelerate as the years go on. We shall need schemes of slum clearance, and that will apply particularly in central London.
The next question was whether the estimates are right. Necessarily, they are very broad estimates, but we do not think that they are seriously exaggerated, if exaggerated at all. There is no mistaking what they mean. Even with active and full redevelopment of the inner part of London, there is not enough room in the County of London to satisfy the huge and urgent housing needs arising there. We have to do two things simultaneously—redevelop inner London and find somewhere outside for the overspill population. It means that we must do these two things simultaneously, and that they are not competitive but complementary.
Naturally, the first preoccupation of the L.C.C. must be with slum clearance and building inside the county, but their out-county estates are already beginning to run down, and they must have a few selected town developments to enable them to continue that effort. My hon. Friend asked whether people will be driven into London and what we are doing to discourage more people flooding in as the overspill moves out. If this plan is to be fully effective, we should have to direct them. Let us face up to it, and recognise that that is really impracticable, just as it is with factories.
What we can do is steadily refuse to allow London to expand into the Green Belt and steadily decline to allow its industry to grow, so that employment will be moved out, while steadily increasing

the attractions of other towns, including the new and expanding towns. If my hon. Friend can think of any measures by which that plan can be implemented, I should be very grateful if he would let me have them.
Another point raised by my hon. Friend was about density. He asked whether the London figures were fixed and final, or whether they could be looked at again. As I said when we first came into office, we had a look at the density figures, and the town planning experts changed their minds several times in the early stages, when schemes included enormous gardens and very wide roads. Gradually, these Utopian ideas have come down to a more practicable level in accord with what we can afford as a nation, both in terms of land and money, and I think that the Ministry's example in that respect has been very salutary, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead would agree.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Lowering the standard.

Mr. Marples: Not necessarily lowering the standard at all, because so many people who have gone to the new towns complain bitterly that they are far away from their neighbours, and a lot of them have been used to having their neighbours quite close to them next door. Quite a number of people do not like the arrangement. Some do, and some do not, and we have to cater for both, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have not lowered the standard.
The densities in the L.C.C. areas are different. In the central areas, there are 200 people to the residential acre; there are 136 people to the acre over large areas surrounding the central area; and there are 100 or 70 people to the acre in the outer areas, or in a few small inner areas selected for house building as distinct from the development of flats.
That means that most people will have to accept the idea of living in flats, many of them in fairly high blocks. We think that the L.C.C. are going as high as they reasonably can with these densities. The higher we build, the more the cost of each unit increases; the more people accommodated, the greater is the provision required for schools, open spaces, etc., and the fewer people who can be accommodated in houses. The tradition


of this country is still opposed to flats for families and children, though many Londoners will have to put up with them.
One of the reasons for this is the necessity to save our agricultural land, and I should like to say a word or two in that respect. We agree that, wherever it is humanly possible, agricultural land must be saved from building. In the Ministry, we often consult, first of all, the local authorities as to what their plans are, and very often we have to tell them that they must not build on good agricultural land. Then, again, if they have same idea of building on agricultural land, when they come to the Ministry with detailed plans we refuse them, but these cases never get any publicity at all. In fact, I think I shall ask my right hon. Friend whether some publicity would not be given to some of these cases in which we have prevented the use of agricultural land for building, because in many cases the Ministry has refused such permission, but the cases have never seen the light of day.
Next, my hon. Friend asked whether the Ministry has a programme for the whole country over the next few years. He asked what share of the housing programme would it represent, once it was seriously under way in 1956. What provision was there for a review of the programme to make sure that there is no over-provision of services? The short answer to these questions is that, over the next three or four years, the total number of houses that may be built to meet overspill requirements for both London and the Provinces, including the new towns, is not likely, at a rough estimate, to exceed a maximum of 14,000 or 15,000 houses in any one year; that is, 5 percent, of the 300,000 houses, which is the rate at which we are now building.
Later on, the expanded programme can be expected to increase as the new town programmes begin to run down, but it is most improbable that this total annual figure will go beyond the 5 percent, of the total number of houses now being built. The alarm has been caused by the fact that the L.C.C. have made a number of inquiries all over the country, and there have been altogether 60 such cases. Like the Grand National, there are many hurdles to get over, and all the starters do not finish.
Let us take the first hurdle. An authority very often starts off by being very willing, but eventually the difficulties become overwhelming and it withdraws. The second hurdle is the planning difficulty. The planning authorities say that a scheme is impossible because it is proposed for agricultural land. The London County Council deserve recognition for the loyal way they have tried to work the town development policy instead of looking for further housing estates inside the Green Belt. There were members of the L.C.C. who wanted to raid the Green Belt, but that is not desirable. We already have sufficient numbers of people concentrated in London and we must have breathing space. I will not criticise the L.C.C., but thank them for the work they have done.
I hope I have satisfied my hon. Friend that we shall proceed with town development at a reasonable pace and shall learn from experience as we go along.

TRAFFIC FLOW, LONDON

2.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: The House has been very interested in the problems of overspill. I have a constituency interest, but this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary overspilled into my time.
I rise to call attention to the need to give further consideration to speeding the flow of vehicles in London and vehicles entering and leaving London. This Easter there will probably be more vehicles on the road than ever before in the history of this country. Throughout the whole of 1954, increased supplies of vehicles will come forward and this, combined with the fall in the price of second-hand vehicles, will mean more cars, vans and buses on the roads than ever before. I am well aware that it will take some time to develop the major road schemes which are absolutely essential in the long run to deal with our traffic problems, but I fervently believe that we can do a good deal straight away to ease the situation and to set some matters right.
When we are short of resources, as we were in the early days of the war, it is doubly important to make the optimum use of them. I wish to draw attention to the needs for greater study and for


operational research on traffic. Improved flow of traffic in the Greater London area save times, which saves travellers' money and prevents fares from going up. The London Transport Executive have already stated that if the buses in London could be speeded up by only one mile per hour they would have £1 million a year. Those who represent a Greater London constituency feel very sensitive about this problem of increased fares. Therefore, any money that can be saved by the London Transport Executive will be very well worth while. Better flow of traffic will lead to fewer accidents. Abrupt stopping and starting, and higgledy-piggledy traffic, cause accidents, and all parts of our economy suffer.
I wonder whether the problems of traffic flow in London are as close to the hearts of our police as they could be. Some of the police seem more interested in technical obstruction than in real traffic obstruction. I know of cases where people have been fined for parking in a cul-de-sac while other people who have parked their cars on main traffic arteries have got away scot-free. It is utter selfishness to park on a main traffic artery. I hope that my hon. Friend will ask the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police whether greater attention cannot be given to obstruction on the main roads.
This position is only partly due to parking by private car owners. I know there are black sheep. I knew one driver who always brought a van to London because he found he could leave his van anywhere he liked and do whatever he wanted to do, and no one asked him the least question. If he left a private car in the same way there was more chance of his name being taken. There is a considerable amount of abuse with the parking of vans. Everyone who has driven in London will have seen vans parked while their drivers were obviously having a cup of tea, or were unloading the van with unconscionable slowness. This morning I saw a huge van parked just on the main crossing of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road. The whole of the Oxford Street traffic going in one direction was reduced to a single line and I was able to observe what was going on. In about two minutes, a man came out and carried a tray into a shop and then he disappeared again for a further

two minutes. When goods vehicles need to be parked outside premises perhaps help could be given from people in the shop to unload the van more quickly. If the police were more interested we could do something about this matter.
At various times I have consulted policemen on the beat, and I have even been to police stations, to point out that traffic lights are faulty, or to draw attention to serious obstruction. I have found it difficult to interest the police in traffic lights. They say, "It is not our job to look after traffic lights." Every week a new set of traffic lights is put in somewhere in London, and I wonder whether sufficient design study has been given to them.
If two lines of traffic are going in the same direction I do not see why the left-hand line should not be allowed to filter, and thus permit all the traffic to be speeded up. Advance signs should be erected so that cars going to the left could get into the left-hand lane of traffic. It seems that the Ministry of Transport is allergic to filter lights. There is a case in point at Staines, where we have one of the chief bottlenecks on the main trunk roads. For a long time the Ministry of Transport steadfastly refused to put in any filter arrows, but, eventually, this was done, with the result that the flow of traffic has been considerably improved.
I have never been able to understand why traffic going from left to right at the top of a "T" needs to be stopped completely by lights while the traffic is coming up the vertical part of the "T." Particularly is that the case when there are two lanes of traffic going along the top of the "T." I would ask the Minister to consider whether straight-through filter arrows could not be provided so as to avoid stopping the traffic flow.
May I return to the question of filter arrows on lights, and give an example at the beginning of the Barnet by-pass which leads to my constituency. The lights as one comes down from Highgate Hill were put in only a year ago. All north-bound traffic is stopped while the left-hand traffic could filter left. If my hon. Friend thinks that that is unfair to pedestrians I would ask him whether a switch could not be given to pedestrians so that the filtering traffic would be held up whilst the pedestrians are crossing.
Another way round this problem—other than filter lights—is the construction of slip roads where main roads cross other main roads. Near my constituency, the main road crosses the North Circular Road in many places, and I can see no reason why slip roads should not be constructed, thus allowing the traffic on the left to filter left without any difficulty at all. All these matters are minor points which could be attended to without the need for major capital construction schemes and major expenditure.
The question of pedestrian-operated lights is a problem with which those of us who have arterial roads running through our constituencies are beset. I notice that the Minister has authorised the installation of three sets of pedestrian traffic lights on the North Circular Road just to the west of the Welsh Harp and Staples Corner. Is the right hon. Gentleman studying the working of those lights? It seems to me that they give a long time cycle to pedestrians, with the result that they tend to create traffic blocks.
Only the other day, I noticed that there was almost half a mile of traffic in each direction, although it was night time when no pedestrians were crossing either way. Where there is a dual traffic way, would it not be more economical to allow pedestrians to cross half way and then to operate lights for the other carriage way, rather than to stop all traffic in both directions at the same time?
There are one or two glaring examples of traffic bottlenecks. The John Barnes corner in Finchley Road is one of them. Here pedestrian traffic lights have been put in and the refuge has been left in situ. The result of that bottleneck is that all traffic proceeding north—and this is a main way out of London—has to be reduced temporarily to single-line traffic. It seems to me that while pedestrian traffic lights are being installed, the refuge should be removed. Such traffic lights are either effective or they are not. If they are effective, then there is no need for a refuge in the middle of the road, because the light operates across the whole stream. Why, therefore, is there any need for an obstruction in the middle of the road when a pedestrian can walk right across the road when the lights are in his favour?
All over London one sees minor alterations to pavements and roadways which do not cost a lot of money. Can my hon. Friend say whether when these alterations are being made consideration is given to the improvement of traffic flow? I know of one or two glaring examples where the roadway sticks right out and obstructs traffic very badly. In many cases, the pavement is unnecessarily wide. While alterations were being made to the pavement improvements to the flow of traffic could, in many cases, have not been effected.
I realise that action does not rest only with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. To some extent, action must rest with the motorist and with a slightly more unselfish viewpoint on the part of all motorists. I hope that in the new Highway Code, which, I understand, is at present in draft form, motorists will be encouraged to hug the left of the road. It is quite astonishing how many motorists drive in the centre of the road, thus preventing vehicles coming towards them from overtaking one another. We have all had the experience of trying to overtake the car in front and being prevented from doing so because the vehicle coming towards us stays in the middle of the road. Very often the driver of such a vehicle waves his hand and shouts. "Get over," whereas had he kept to the left, the traffic would have flowed much more safely and speedily.
As I do not wish to be merely destructive, I propose to make some constructive suggestions. I believe that all the examples I have given show the need for the most vigorous operational research into this problem. Public money is being expended on this matter at the road research laboratories, but I am not convinced that the good work which they are doing is receiving the attention it should. Nor am I convinced that the tempo of it is sufficiently high. Could my hon. Friend's Ministry not only make more use of the results of the road research laboratories, but put them to work at accelerated speed on many of these other problems?
Traffic is slowly coming to a halt in the Greater London area. Every day it is becoming more obstructed with more vehicles and more traffic queues. We cannot alter that state of affairs until we have improved our roads and provided


proper parking facilities, but I believe that we could make very useful improvements by an intensive study of this problem and by paying attention to what that study reveals and taking speedy action on it.

3.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It is indeed a pleasure to be able for once to support an hon. Member of the party opposite on a transport matter. It is not often that we see eye to eye with one another on questions of policy but in regard to the problem of the flow of traffic in London we are all very much concerned at the present time. After all, it affects the comfort and the pocket of every Londoner.
I agree with pretty well everything that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) has said, except that I do not share his inclination to censure the police in regard to the enforcement of the parking regulations, because that is one of the most difficult of all the traffic problems which confront them. They are really faced with an impossible task. The situation in London is such that the enforcement of the regulations dealing with "No Waiting," unilateral parking, and so on, is quite impossible. Therefore, anomalies are bound to arise in a situation so difficult to cope with and with a police force inadequate to deal with it.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I do not wish the police to be wronged in this matter. I realise that their task is very difficult. I only wish to draw attention to the need to pay greater attention to people obstructing traffic in the greatest degree. It is a question of priority.

Mr. Davies: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has put it that way in order to get it straight on the record, because I do not think that any of us want to cast aspersions on the police in this matter.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of what his Department is doing in the examination of this problem, and when we may expect to have proposals put before us. Last Monday I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a Question concerning the staggering of working hours. In reply, he said:
This is one of a number of proposals which my right hon. Friend is considering to relieve congestion in London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 792.]

That indicated that several matters were under consideration but that it would be some time before we had any result.
I think the House would welcome more information from the hon. Gentleman concerning what his Ministry is doing in this matter and to what extent it considers it a matter of urgency. There is no doubt that action is very badly needed. It is desirable that some programme should be produced by the Department to remove these obstacles to the free flow of traffic and that attention should be paid to the inadequate street system in London, to extensive and excessive parking and to congestion of traffic in the peak periods, not only on the streets, but also within the vehicles, to the discomfort of all who travel.
There is also, of course, the need for a very large programme of constructive work in regard to the electrification of suburban railways and the building of new tubes so that some of the traffic can be taken off the roads and transferred to other forms of transport. The situation is becoming impossible. It has deteriorated until it has reached an almost fantastic stage. Vehicles travelling through London today spend only two-thirds of their time doing effective work. For the remaining third they are stationary, but still burning fuel. There is also the wear and tear on the vehicles and the wasted manpower of the men driving them.
The situation, especially as it becomes worse, affects not only the cost of operating passenger vehicles but the cost of the transport of goods generally. It thereby affects the cost of living. It seems ridiculous that today one can travel more quickly on a bicycle in the country than one can travel across London in a motor vehicle. The average speed of London Transport vehicles, taking all their scheduled routes together, is under 11 miles per hour.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary a four-point programme which would contribute to the relief, or to the solution, of the very difficult problem confronting London today. The first point is, of course, road improvement and construction on a scale far vaster than is being undertaken at the present time. Second, the extension of the parking restrictions—severe as they are now—and their strict enforcement. Third, a


reduction of the volume of traffic by two means—the transfer of traffic as far as possible from the roads to other forms of transport, such as new tubes and so on, and consideration of restriction on the traffic which enters and leaves London. The fourth point is the levelling out of peak periods by the staggering of working hours. I will enlarge briefly on each of the four points.
The road construction programme so far agreed by the Minister is quite inadequate to the needs of London. The previous Government may have been as much to blame as the present Administration, but it is shocking that since the war there have been no major schemes of road improvement or construction in the London area—except some in connection with the Festival of Britain. Figures given in HANSARD last Monday showed that in 1953–54 the total amount granted by the central Government to new construction or major improvement was in the case of the L.C.C. only £29,000; the City of London, £21,000; and the Middlesex County Council, £36,000. That is a total of £86,000 for the Greater London area. It is really a shocking reflection upon the priorities which we put on the different forms of capital investment that these amounts are so small.
The new programme which has been drawn up, and which is quite inadequate, does not include a large number of most urgent schemes. I am sure that each of us here this afternoon could quote instances from his own constituency where new construction or improvement is required. I have frequently raised the matter of the Great Cambridge Road. That has a dual carriageway as far as Edmonton, but through Edmonton and Enfield to the Hertfordshire border it is single carriageway. It was never completed. The Minister has now agreed to the construction of the second carriageway on the part running through Edmonton, but not through Enfield. I cannot understand why the scheme could not proceed as a whole during the coming year rather than in two separate sections.
When travelling down this road the other day I was shocked to find that, just prior to the construction of the second carriageway, new lighting has been put in. Although new lighting is essential, to go to the expense of erecting

new concrete standards and all that goes with them and which will have to come down when the road is widened, seems a waste of money. I would far rather there had been a delay in the erection of the lamp standards and the new dual carriageway more quickly built.
In the House I have frequently raised the question of the level crossings in my constituency, particularly that at Brimsdown, over which most of the workers employed in that industrial area have to travel daily and which all transport to it has to traverse. For many years schemes for a bridge there have been drawn up, but only recently deputations to the Minister received, unfortunately, no satisfaction whatever.
Those instances which I have given from my own constituency can, I know, be repeated by other hon. Members from theirs. I know that new works take a long time to complete, that the benefits derived from them are not immediately realised, and that they are costly and slow. None the less, a programme should be drawn up and progress accelerated if this problem of the flow of traffic is not to become far worse. As the hon. Member for Hendon, North has stated, we shall this Easter have more traffic on the roads than ever before. The problem will get worse and worse as the months and years go on. We must look ahead. We must be planning now the extension and widening of existing roads and the removal of bottlenecks, and the construction of new roads so as to cope with the increased traffic which will demand to roll along them.
My second point, parking, was also touched on by the hon. Member for Hendon, North. In spite of the increase in the number of yellow band areas and in unilateral parking, that problem has become far worse. One finds cars parked in many streets which were not so used before. It is rather unsightly to drive through the Royal Parks today. One finds cars parked in Birdcage Walk, and on the Mall and on the East carriageway of Hyde Park. As far as I am aware, no parking was allowed in the Royal Parks before the war, but their use for that purpose is increasing. It is most regrettable.
The only remedy so far suggested is the construction of more car parks and the building of underground parks, and that, we know, is very expensive. I doubt


however, if by providing more car parking space we shall very much relieve the situation. The more space provided the greater number of cars will come into London. At present many drivers do not bring their vehicles into the centre of London because of lack of parking space. As soon as more space is created more cars will come in. That is no solution to the problem. We can create wider roads but, unless there is strict enforcement in regard to car parking, that will not be the answer. The Parliamentary Secretary has only to drive down the Embankment after the House adjourns this afternoon and he will see cars parked from Blackfriars Bridge to Charing Cross Bridge. This area, which was not previously regarded as a parking place, is now being so used because the Embankment has been widened. As soon as new construction or improvements take place, the advantages and the benefits are lost if as a result there is increased parking on those streets.
I suggest, therefore, that there should be far stricter enforcement of the law in this respect. The situation is much aggravated by deliveries from vans to which reference has been made. There should be greater restriction on the hours during which deliveries take place. Before the war there was a restriction, and only before or after certain hours were deliveries allowed. These restrictions seem to have lapsed, and something should now be done to restore them.
On the subject of keeping some of the traffic off the streets, I think that the case for electrification of the railways and for the building of new underground railways is unanswerable. Unless we look ahead and plan for a reduction in the traffic coming into and leaving London carrying workers and other travellers, and unless we make provision for them to travel on faster and more comfortable transport, which can only be brought by electrification of the suburban railways and construction of new underground railways, the problem will become increasingly worse. We shall be faced with worse restrictions than we now experience, and they will be restrictions which will unpalatable to Londoners.
It will be unpalatable if it becomes necessary, as I fear it will, to impose restrictions on the entry of private cars into London. If the present number of

such cars increases, there will not be space on the streets for them either to move or park. There is no doubt that the entry of private cars into Central London is uneconomical and increases congestion considerably. A bus carries far more passengers compared with the space it occupies than does a car.
My final point relates to the staggering of working hours. Something was done in this respect during the war, and not without success. Today the position has become far worse than it was before the war because of the shorter working week and the fact that far more people are working during the same hours and on the same days—many have a five-day week of about 44 hours. That means that the actual peak period has been concentrated into a shorter space and it reaches its climax between 5.30 and 6.0 p.m. when a third of the workers in Central London leave their work.
If the peak period could be levelled out and spread over a longer period, so that some people arrive at work earlier and leave earlier and others arrive later and leave later, there would not be the necessity to have so many buses on the streets to add to the congestion and worsen the position. One-third of London Transport buses are used for peak periods only. Unless drastic action is taken, the situation will steadily deteriorate and congestion will increase; the speed of traffic will slow down and the cost of travel will rise. Then the Minister will be driven to take unpalatable action which I am sure he would not wish to do.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I should like briefly to draw my hon. Friend's attention to one point which was not mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), and that is the question of one-way streets. I sometimes feel that the Ministry is rather allergic to one-way streets in that it is rather slow in bringing them into operation. Yet I cannot think of any one-way street system which has been brought into operation in Central London and which has ever been abandoned. They have all been found to be successful and have been continued.
I should like to refer to one suggestion which was made in the Griffith-Jones Report of a one-way system in Park Lane and the east carriage drive of Hyde Park.


I should like to know whether that suggestion has been considered and whether any decision has been reached. It is worth while experimenting with one-way streets; if they do not succeed, they can always return to two-way working.
I should like the Minister to try a one-way street system in Jermyn Street, which is one of the most congested streets in the West End. I hardly ever turn down that street without finding a mass of cars parked on either side, leaving just enough room for one line of traffic to pass. Obviously, if there are two streams of traffic moving in opposite directions, there comes a point when they come to a standstill facing each other. We should complain seriously if British Railways ran express trains in opposite directions on the same line, but that is, in effect, what happens in a good many of our narrowest streets in Central London.
I know that one-way streets are regarded in some quarters as restrictions on the flow of traffic. I agree that they are restrictions in the sense that one cannot use them in the wrong direction, but surely they should be regarded as a means of speeding up the flow of traffic by preventing it from going in more than one direction. There are many other examples which one could quote, but the time is getting short, and I conclude by urging my hon. Friend to consider this problem seriously.

3.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): In the few speeches which it has been possible to include in this short debate there have been two different lines of argument. There have been a number of individual cases raised, some concerning the constituencies of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), and reference has also been made to general issues. I think it would be convenient to the House generally if I did not attempt to deal with the particular cases which have been raised but gave an undertaking that all these matters will be looked into by the Department.
I should begin by explaining where the responsibility for traffic and roads in Central London rests. Under a number of Acts dealing with local government,

within the London County Council area the Metropolitan Boroughs are the highway authorities. Outside the London County Council area, the county councils, three county borough councils, various borough and urban district councils are all the highway authorities. They are responsible for the upkeep and improvement of the roads. They have also the same powers as similar authorities in other parts of the country have to make traffic orders and regulations under the Road Traffic Acts, but those powers are not normally used. It was recognised by this House just 30 years ago that because of this multiplicity of highway authorities within the London area it was desirable to have a single overriding authority to deal with traffic problems.
Accordingly, under the London Traffic Act, 1924, the Minister of Transport was made the traffic authority for an area extending in all directions for about 25 miles from Charing Cross. In order to assist the Minister, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was set up by the same Act The Minister is statutorily bound to consult that committee upon any traffic regulations or orders which he proposes to make under the London Traffic Act. As a matter of courtesy and convenience, he also consults this committee on many other proposals. It is because the Minister has and exercises these powers as the general traffic authority that the highway authorities in the Metropolitan area do not normally exercise their traffic regulating powers.
The House will appreciate that the dividing line between a highway authority and a traffic authority is a difficult one to draw. At the same time, it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is not a real and, on balance, a convenient distinction. There are many arguments, on grounds of convenience and economy, for leaving the local authorities responsible for the maintenance of their highways, and it naturally follows that with the highways there must go such road works as traffic lights, roundabouts, refuges in the middle of the roads, and so on. Nevertheless, for an area like the Metropolitan area, it is obviously far more convenient that there should be a single traffic authority capable of dealing with the problem as a whole.
Given goodwill and a spirit of co-operation, I think it can be said that the system which was created in 1924 does not work too badly, although there are many occasions when the Minister, as traffic authority, would like to have physical alterations made in order to improve the flow of traffic but has no power to initiate a scheme and cannot compel local authorities to spend their ratepayers' money upon improvements. Many local authorities take the view that improvements in the flow of traffic would chiefly benefit people coming from outside their own local areas.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Am I not right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman's Department makes a 50 percent, contribution to the upkeep and improvement of trunk roads? If it is to contribute financially, surely it should have some say about the regulation of traffic on these trunk roads?

Mr. Molson: I am not talking about trunk roads, in respect of which the Ministry pays the whole cost.
In addition, the Metropolitan Police have certain powers, under the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839. Very often, by agreement with the Ministry and the local authorities concerned, they put up temporary signs, such as those which impose "no waiting" restrictions, and if the outcome is satisfactory the temporary police regulation is replaced by a permanent regulation made by the Minister of Transport.
That describes the present responsibility for the traffic of London. I frankly admit that the existing state of traffic is unsatisfactory, and that it is becoming worse daily. This is the result of a great increase in the number of vehicles, especially cars parked for long periods by the kerb. The Road Research Laboratory has made two surveys, at intervals of 24 months. In September, 1951, the proportion of kerb parking space occupied by parked cars in certain streets in the West End of London was 53 percent. Twenty-four months later it had gone up to 75 per cent.
I also agree with the criticisms made by hon. Members that general traffic manners in London are shocking. Vans are frequently stopped to unload even in echelon formation. In Berkeley Street,

under the very nose of the Ministry of Transport, I have seen cars parked three-deep. We are not very far from a complete blockage of traffic in London. The House will remember the conditions during the Coronation last summer. Contrary to general opinion, there was not a very large percentage increase in the number of vehicles in London during that time, but that comparatively small increase was enough to make movement almost impossible. It is, perhaps, worth while to mention that in Oxford Street, where my hon. Friend was this morning, the average speed of traffic at the present time is less than eight miles an hour.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked me to say what the Minister is doing about this problem. In the first place, my right hon. Friend started an experiment in January, 1953, with unilateral waiting on 31 lengths of street in London. As my right hon. Friend told the House in answer to a Question a few weeks ago after a survey, it is found that that scheme is working well. He is now discussing with local authorities and the Metropolitan Police how far the scope of those restrictions should be extended. I am afraid that, as is the case with all consultations, they are taking a long time. I am sure, however, that those restrictions have afforded a substantial measure of relief, and I hope that we shall be able to go forward on the same lines.
In the second place, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee has recommended that the Minister should make an experiment in prohibiting waiting altogether on both sides of the street, including loading and unloading, at certain important intersections and on certain important lengths of streets during peak traffic times. This very drastic power, which he has not yet exercised, may well later have to be used on an even much larger scale than is proposed by the Traffic Advisory Committee.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It will.

Mr. Molson: If it is to be acceptable to public opinion I think we shall have to provide underground and overground garages in the centre of London.

Sir William Darling: At what cost?

Mr. Molson: Some hon. Members may have read the Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, which has been published. It proposes die use of parking meters to provide some or all of the money needed for building these garages. While the Government have not yet reached any final conclusion upon this matter, it is under careful consideration at the present time.
I come to a third method that is under consideration. It is that of increasing the number of one-way streets. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), who, I was glad, was able to slip a few useful words into the debate, in that I believe that one-way streets do afford a very substantial alleviation of the traffic problem. The procedure in this case is very similar to what I have described in the case of unilateral waiting. I think it is likely that, with the concurrence of the local authorities and the Metropolitan Police, we shall be able to extend this system.
There was some criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North of the Metropolitan Police. He felt that they do not prosecute drivers who are guilty of serious obstruction. I do not think that blame attaches to the Metropolitan Police at the present time. I feel that our restrictions and regulations are now so inadequate for dealing with the problem that one cannot reasonably ask more of the police. We have not enough parking places for vehicles. With so many other important duties, the police, I think, feel that it would be unreasonable to prosecute drivers for doing something when they do not know what else drivers could do. Until the law is in harmony with social and economic realities, it will never be respected and cannot be enforced. My right hon. Friend values very much the co-operation of the Commissioner of Police and of Mr. Dalton, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who sits on my Road Safety Committee.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Road Research Laboratory and suggested that more should be done in the way of operational research. The cost of the Road Research Laboratory is borne on the estimates of the Depart-

ment of Scientific and Industrial Research, and it is no concern or responsibility of my right hon. Friend. I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means by operational research, but I think we should do better to avoid that word. The Ministry of Transport avails itself of the work done by the R.R.L., which observes and measures traffic. In fact, the statistics I have have given to the House this afternoon were obtained from the R.R.L., with which I am in close touch, and the new Regulations regarding tail lights and reflectors are partly based on their work.
The R.R.L. is at present investigating traffic lights with a view to ascertaining how they may be best timed in order to speed up traffic, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Transport has to take other things into account besides the speed of traffic. We have to consider the convenience and safety of pedestrians, and it is, therefore, not possible for us always to accept the advice given to us for the speeding up of traffic. That applies particularly in the case of filters to the left, which my hon. Friend advocated. We consider that hampers pedestrians and it is in many cases dangerous.
The purpose of the refuge in the middle of the road where traffic lights are placed is to give pedestrians a sense of security in crossing and to enable them to stop there if the lights change while they are in the middle of crossing the road.
My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the great and increasing congestion of traffic in the London area, and he is conscious of his responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act, 1924, but, as I have explained, he is not a dictator and he is obliged to carry with him both the local authorities and the Metropolitan Police.
I have indicated to the House a number of steps which might alleviate our difficulties. As I said in reply to a Question last week by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, we are also considering what steps should be taken to stagger hours of work around the rush hours. We are working at the present time on all these matters, and I hope we shall be able to make an early start.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: There are two minutes to spare, and I wonder if the Minister will tell us something about


pedestrian crossings. Has he considered whether the flashing beacon is still drawing the attention of the motorists as it was in the early months of its introduction? My own impression is that there are so many flashing signs—cars also have to flash before they turn and advertisements are continually flashing—that the impact on the motorist is much less acute. I wonder whether during the hours of darkness my hon. Friend would consider making the flashing lights pedestrian controlled so that they would only flash when a pedestrian wants to cross and so draw the attention of the motorist to the need to slow down and stop.

Mr. Molson: These flashing beacons follow on from the measures of the last Labour Government, when zebra crossings were started by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), who was the Minister of Transport, and I give him full credit for that. They have worked extremely well in the early stages. The purpose of having them flash was to enable a motorist to distinguish them from the sometimes similar lights in shop windows. If in recent months there has been an increase in the number of lights flashing, so that they are now becoming confusing, we will look into that matter.

CORPORAL LEIGHTON (QUASHED CONVICTION)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: On 29th March, I raised a number of Questions in the House about the case of Corporal George Henry Leighton. I think the House felt that the replies given on that occasion by the Solicitor-General were highly unsatisfactory, and I propose, in the short time available this afternoon, to ask the War Office, which is principally concerned in this case, a number of further questions about it. I do so because I think, first, that in a case of this kind there is a moral obligation on the part of the Service Department to make an ex gratia payment in compensation to the man affected and, second, because I think the case of Corporal Leighton has revealed some defect in the judicial procedure in the Armed Forces.
Corporal Leighton was convicted by an Aldershot court-martial on the charge of assault on 17th September last year, and the findings of the court-martial were promulgated a week later on 24tb September. His petition to the Secretary of State for War, which is provided for in a case of this kind by the Courts-Martial Appeals Courts Act, was presented on 12th December, we were told by the Solicitor-General—a delay of 11 weeks from the promulgation of the findings of the court-martial. The application of Corporal Leighton to appeal to the appeals court was made on 19th January this year, a further delay of five and a half weeks from the time of the presentation of his petition. Leave to appeal to the court was granted on 15th March, which was a period of another eight weeks from the time he applied for the leave to appeal, and his appeal was finally heard one week later on 22nd March.
That was a period of 26½ weeks from the time of his conviction by the court-martial to the time of his successful appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeals Court, and the Lord Chief Justice who heard the case in the court made the following comment which I take from "The Times" report:
Where there were short sentences it should be borne in mind that in many cases the sentence would be served before the appeal was heard. It was not pleasant for the court to think that when they quashed the appellant's conviction, he had already served his sentence.
That was the fact in this case. Corporal Leighton had served the sentence of nine months' imprisonment by the court-martial on 24th September by the time that his appeal was heard on 22nd March, 1954. Therefore I assent in the first place that, because of that fact, Corporal Leighton is entitled morally to some compensation.
The Solicitor-General on 29th March stated that the War Office was making good his pay, which he had lost from the time of his conviction, but it cannot be suggested that this is in any way compensation, because Corporal Leighton was legally entitled to get his pay back, having appealed successfully and having his conviction and sentence quashed by the Courts-Martial Appeals Court. The moral obligation which, I assert, rests on the War Office in this case arises from


the long delay which occurred between the original court-martial and the hearing of the appeal and the fact that Corporal Leighton had served his sentence before the Court of Appeal had the opportunity of quashing it on the ground that the court-martial finding could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
This is not the first occasion when this kind of question has been raised. On 17th November, 1952, the case of Regina versus Grant was raised in the House. It is interesting to note that on that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) raised precisely the question which I am raising today. He asked the Attorney-General:
Is it a fact that, while waiting for the appeal to be heard, the prisoner is actually undergoing a sentence and, if that is the case, is it possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to do something in order that a man should not serve a sentence pending the hearing of the appeal?
To which the Attorney-General replied:
That is another matter, of which I should like to have notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1386.]
This is an important matter. It should be absolutely clear that a man who suffers a wrong of this kind, because, by the Appeal Court's judgment, Corporal Leighton was wrongfully imprisoned, is entitled to compensation.
The first question which I want to put to the representative of the War Office is, why was there such a long delay in the presentation of Leighton's petition? There was a delay, of which the Solicitor-General made much in his answers on 29th March, of 11 weeks between the promulgation of the findings of the court-martial and the presentation of the petition which has to be made under the terms of the Act before leave to appeal can be entered. My information is that the delay was caused by Southern Command Headquarters, who sat on the petition for many weeks, thus causing its delay in presentation to the Secretary of State for War and, therefore, the prolongation of the period of Corporal Leighton's imprisonment.
My second question is to ask what legal advice was available to Corporal Leighton so that he should be thoroughly informed of the procedure under the Acts governing courts-martial. The Solicitor-General was quite unable to answer that

question on 29th March. He tried to brush us off with the reply that when the Bill setting up the Appeal Court was considered by the House, general assurances were given that legal advice would be available to soldiers. He was not able to tell the House anything about the legal advice that was available to Corporal Leighton in this case. It seems quite clear that had proper legal advice been given to Corporal Leighton, there would not have been a delay of 11 weeks between his conviction by court-martial and the presentation of his petition, any more than there should have been such long delays between his leave to appeal and the presentation of his appeal.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War will be able to give satisfactory replies and assurances on these points this afternoon. The establishment of the Courts-Martial Appeals Court was a great step forward in the reform of the judicial procedure in the Armed Forces. I think it is the desire of all Members that it should work satisfactorily and that as far as possible soldiers should have the same judicial rights as civilians, although necessarily there must be some differences. But when we find that in all the cases which have been heard so far since 1951 there is, on average, delay of more than 20 weeks between court-martial and the hearing of appeal, we are entitled to ask questions and to find out whether something cannot be done to speed up the procedure.
As the Lord Chief Justice said, if that is the average period today, it must necessarily mean that, where a short sentence has been given, very likely the man may have served the whole of the sentence, or the greater part of it, before the appeal is heard and his appeal may be successful. I hope that the Undersecretary can say that something is to be done to speed up the administration of this judicial procedure in the Armed Forces. I hope also that this afternoon he will say that the War Office will give favourable consideration to the application for some compensation to be given to Corporal Leighton.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Is there any reason why sentence should not be suspended pending the hearing of the appeal? As I suggested before, that would be a powerful inducement to whoever is concerned to get on


with the arrangements. It should not prejudice anyone. If the sentence were confirmed, it could be reimposed.

3.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Although, of course, I was aware of the general line this debate would take after the slight flurry we had at Questions a few days ago, nevertheless I am indebted to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) for having sent me in detail the points he intended to raise this afternoon.
The hon. Member's case is divided into three main issues; first, the question of delay in the appeal procedure, secondly, the question of legal aid and its availability and, thirdly, and to a certain extent it was linked in the speech of the hon. Member with the question of legal aid, the question of compensation. The best way to treat these points is to consider the programme of events in some detail. The allegations which were made against Corporal Leighton were serious and involved only military personnel and incidents taking place in military barracks. It is generally and almost universally recognised that under the circumstances the trial should be by military law. Accordingly, it was decided that the charges which had been levelled should be investigated by court-martial and, as the hon. Member said, a court-martial was held on 15th September.
During those court-martial proceedings Corporal Leighton had legal aid from a firm of solicitors. The finding and sentence of the court-martial were confirmed and promulgated on 24th September, and the same day Leighton put in what is known as a prerogative petition. It is a little confusing as there are two forms of petition, and this question turns largely on those two forms. He put in what is known as the prerogative petition to his own commander-in-chief under Queen's Regulation No. 695. At this stage, and up to the point of the second petition—which is known as the statutory petition and which has to be made to the Secretary of State before leave to appeal is granted and the use of the whole procedure under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act can be brought into force—between the period of these two petitions, Corporal Leighton was advised by the officer who assisted in his defence and

also by an officer who is a qualified solicitor in private life. He was handed a pamphlet immediately after the court-martial showing all his rights and all the procedures of which he could make use. Indeed, he has since expressed his appreciation of the legal assistance which he got throughout the case.
It is important to note that at this point, the time when he put in his prerogative petition, he could, at the same time, have put in the statutory petition, which is the prerequisite to going to appeal. If he had done so he would, of course, have saved a great deal of time, and it was his decision, after getting advice and discussing the matter, to put in the prerogative petition first. So, as I say, a good deal of delay was caused by the soldier himself. I do not know what his reasons were, I am only guessing, but he may have thought it better to have two strings to his bow.
The prerogative petition was passed to the G.O.C.-in-C. Southern Command, who quashed one conviction and remitted three months' imprisonment. The result was promulgated to Leighton on 26th October. Under the circumstances, I do not think that the delay was excessive, but probably a few days could be cut off. On 29th October, Leighton's further application for legal aid to help him in the statutory petition and the appeals procedure reached the War Office, and this further legal aid was granted on 12th November, and was available throughout the whole of the proceedings. So the hon. Member will see that there was no gap in legal advice being available to the man from the very beginning to the very end. It might be noted indeed that in both forms of petition the grounds of the petition were almost identical.
On 12th December the petition was submitted. I wish to point out to the hon. Member, because the question of delay is one which is worrying to him and to everyone else, that a good deal of this delay was due to Corporal Leighton himself: first, his decision to have two separate petitions running; also he took a month after he had got legal aid before he sent on that second petition. That is to say, legal aid was granted on 12th November for the statutory petition—I


see the hon. Member looking puzzled—and the petition only reached us on 12th December.

Mr. Swingler: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a little difficult to believe that if Corporal Leighton had really proper expert legal advice there was a delay of a month between the time when he was granted legal aid—12th November—after the prerogative petition before his petition actually came to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hutchison: Be that what it may, these are the facts. He had legal advice from a firm of solicitors—indeed, one of the solicitors helped in his defence in the court-martial—thoroughly qualified people. This petition to the Secretary of State was rejected on 18th January. On 21st January, he applied for leave to appeal and the application was granted on 15th March. That application was considered in the first instance by a single judge and then had to be referred to a full court.
I would point out that at that point—21st January—any question of delay passed out of the hands of the War Department, and I have no doubt at all, from what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General tells me, that this problem is being noted in the proper quarters. The appeal was heard on 22nd March and the conviction was quashed. The whole question of delay is under consideration in the War Office in so far as it is their responsibility, and is also under consideration by the Lord Chancellor in respect of the time limits laid down in the Act.
It must be recognised, however, that if a man waits until the end of the period of 90 days within which he may submit a petition under the Act it may be impossible for the procedure to be finished and his appeal heard before the sentence has been served. It is true that the period within which a petition can be presented can be reduced, but I think we have to be very careful that we do not do something which, in fact, restricts the rights of a man. These periods were carefully considered at the time the Act was going through Parliament.
Due weight was given to the question of delay, and to the question of a man being able to exercise all his rights and

have time to think things over and discuss them. I can assure the hon. Member that every effort will be made to ensure that there is no undue delay. Cases like this require careful consideration, and I am sure that the hon. Member, and the House, would not want, for the sake of hurrying the thing on, that a case should be skimped or not given proper consideration.
After the conviction was quashed Leighton's discharge from the Army was, of course, cancelled and, with his consent, he has rejoined the Army. The hon. Member has said the restoration of pay and allowances in such a case is automatic, and to this extent, I should point out that Leighton is better placed than a civilian, who would have had no claim for the wages he would have lost under similar circumstances. In this connection the hon. Member should—and no doubt has—taken note of the answers given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in this House about a recent civil case.
We must, of course, expect that from time to time—though I hope rarely—the Appeal Court will reverse the decisions of lower courts, otherwise there would be no point in having an Appeal Court at all. On the question of compensation, neither under civil nor military law is compensation automatic, indeed, it is rare So far as military law is concerned, we judge each case separately on its own merits. In this case I must tell the hon. Member that, taking all the relevant facts into account, we have come to the conclusion that no compensation should be made.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred to the question of a man whose case was under appeal being allowed bail, or at any rate, some provision being made. As that enters into the realms of the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction, I will ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to give the hon. Member a reply on that specific point.

4.8 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I may say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that the question of bail—if one can use that expression in relation to a serving soldier—really falls within the province of the Lord Chancellor's Department. But I


think I can answer the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) from my recollection of the course of the debates on the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House tried to make it the best Measure possible, and they were alive to the great difficulties which might ensue because of the time factor in getting a petition home from abroad and getting on with the hearing of the appeal. I remember that serious consideration was given to the problem which could obviously arise in the case of a soldier, who was with his unit and was convicted of an offence, pending the hearing of an appeal.
I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my recollection is that hon. Members on both sides of the House directed their attention to these problems. The answer is not quite so simple as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. Every step is being taken, so far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned, to ensure that in these cases there shall be no avoidable delay. I said, when answering a Question, that I did not think that there was an undue delay, but if the time can be shortened that is all to the good. I am sure everyone would desire to see that done so far as it may be done consistent with due consideration being given to a case.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) chided me because I was not able to give him precise information about what legal aid had been given to Corporal Leighton in relation to the court-martial proceedings. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that there were no Questions on the Order Paper directed to that matter which falls more within the province of the War Department than of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

s.s. "GOTHIC" (TRADE ADVERTISING)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: In the nine years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have raised many questions on Adjournment debates, but this is the first occasion on which I have not been asked by the Department concerned for some details which would enable them to give a considered reply. It is not because there has been no time, for it will be recalled that I was to have raised this matter on Friday, 26th March. On that occasion the House was counted out.
It is remarkable that on that occasion, as the bells rang, the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is to reply today, hurried into the Chamber with a few other hon. Members, probably thinking that a Division was to take place. When he learned that it was a Count, knowing full well that he was due to answer the debate later, he quickly got out again to make sure that he did not help the business of the House to proceed.
That is typical of the Board of Trade in these days. Industrial circles—and I speak with some knowledge—refer to the Board of Trade as the Department for the prevention rather than the promotion of trade. No doubt the Minister thinks that it is a nuisance to have to be here so late in the day just before Easter. As I anticipate that he has not got much to say, I do not need to worry about allocating much time to him for his reply.
On 25th March I had a Question on the Order Paper which, unfortunately, was not reached, and there was a Written answer. I asked the President of the Board of Trade if he would consider
continuing the Government charter of the s.s. "Gothic" so as to use her for a floating shop window for advertising British productions overseas.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
 No."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 129.]
Not even "No, Sir." Not even a request for details which might be considered, but just a plain "No." I put down another Question for the following week in an attempt to get some satisfaction.


On this occasion there was an Oral answer. I asked the President of the Board of Trade
on what grounds he refuses to consider chartering the s.s. "Gothic" for use as a floating shop window for advertising British productions overseas.
I had a different answer this time. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I am advised that such a scheme raises many practical difficulties which greatly outweigh any possible advantages; it is unlikely that exporters would support the exhibition. In any event, I understand that the s.s. "Gothic" could not easily be made available.
In answer to a supplementary question he said:
I have given careful consideration to this proposal, which is in line with quite a number of other proposals of the same type which have been raised from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 2218.]
One week the President said that he would not bother to consider it; the next week he said that he had given the matter careful consideration. That is the type of Minister with whom we have to deal.
When the Minister said that this is a type of proposal which has been made from time to time, he was talking through the back of his neck. Twelve months ago the "Gothic" would not have been the attraction that it could be now and for the next 12 months after the Royal tour. I defy the Department to quote a similar incident of this type which has been considered.
I am fairly sure where the Minister's advisers got the wording for his answers. In March, 1946, we had the Report of the Ramsden Committee, which sat to consider the part which exhibitions and fairs should play in the promotion of export trade. The wording of the answers is very similar to what I submit is a very out-of-date Report today. The Report said:
Such a scheme could be said to have the merit of following established business practice in going out to meet the customer.
That has to do with floating exhibitions. The Report then went on, in the words of the Minister, as follows:
… but the many practical difficulties are formidable and would appear to outweigh any possible advantages.

To give an indication of how out-of-date the Report is, it also said:
In the first place, there would appear to be little prospect of a ship or ships being released or built for a long time to come.
That was very appropriate in 1945, but it is an entirely different proposition in 1954. We had a sellers' market for many years after 1945, but the situation today is entirely different. If the Minister's evidence is not taken from this Report, which is out-of-date, I challenge him to say where the evidence was obtained on which his advisers prepared his answers.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the obstacles in the way in getting the s.s. "Gothic" are insuperable? I do not mean immediately after the Royal tour. It could be in the autumn or even next spring; in fact, in time to advertise on the s.s. "Gothic" in the North American ports the British Industries Fair, which badly needs that publicity. If the Minister says that the obstacles are insuperable, then I begin to wonder whether he is the best President of the Board of Trade that we could have.
The President's answer said that such a scheme would not be supported by exporters'. I wonder where the right hon. Gentleman got that information. The Minister would be amazed at the number of Tory Members of Parliament who are business men who have congratulated me on this proposal. I have a lot of letters from industrialists from which I wish to give one or two extracts. The first one says:
Dear Mr. Dodds,
This last Thursday evening I dined at the Dorchester Hotel with Mr. Lucien Wagner, and I told him about your idea of using the s.s. 'Gothic' as an exhibition ship to tour the ports of the United States of America. Mr. Wagner's reaction was astounding. He said he considered the idea the best he had ever heard for selling to the Americans. He went on to say that if he had been British, and in business in Britain, he would have been glad to finance the project. Since Mr. Lucien Wagner is a top-ranking business man in Belgium, his opinion is of great value, and it is for that reason that I am passing it on to you.
The second extract is:
Dear Mr. Dodds,
All the world is interested in the s.s. 'Gothic' and I feel sure there is no good reason for the sad recital last Thursday by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft in answer to your Questions. If the 'Gothic' was used in the United Slates of America as a floating shop window for United Kingdom goods, golden


dollars would be raked in. The advantages would greatly outweigh any practical difficulties. Far more exporters would want to exhibit their goods than could be accommodated in this direction. With Government favour"—
I emphasise "With Government favour"—
I and my friends are ready to provide all the finance necessary to cover the whole of the cost of fitting out the ship as a floating exhibition and for taking her to ports in America. Manufacturers would consider it a privilege to pay all charges in advance if given the opportunity to show their goods in the ship. There are hundreds of manufacturers in Britain not interested in exhibiting their products at the British Industries Fair who would be pleased to pay several times the cost of a stand at the British Industries Fair for a small space on the s.s. 'Gothic' as a travelling exhibition visiting the United States of America. When the Board of Trade are unwilling to support a project that would attract almost every United States citizen, then I do not wonder that the Americans are inclined to complain that British methods of salesmanship are out-of-date.
Those are two letters from business men, the second from a man who is in a big way of business, with contacts with some of the biggest engineering firms in the country.
I should mention, at this stage, that for 10 years I have planned, built and controlled some of the biggest exhibitions held in this country, and I have made a study of exhibitions. This, therefore, is my line. In 1948 I raised a similar matter with the Labour President of the Board of Trade about a floating exhibition to North America. I then gave the reason that it was obvious to me that the influence of the British Industries Fair was diminishing, and that we would have to have very much more than the B.I.F. to get orders or attract buyers from overseas. I did not mind a bit, but I got my fingers rapped for saying something unkind about the British Industries Fair.
Time has marched on, and I have now found an excellent ally as a result. A sub-committee has been set up to review the present arrangements for the British Industries Fair, and, on page 4 of its report, it says:
Other evidence received, however, has also confirmed the impression that the Fair has been losing ground in the eyes of both buyers and exhibitors. This trend has been particularly noticeable at the London section, and drastic steps are needed to enable it to regain its prestige and play its full part in the promotion of British trade.

Among the recommendations made and accepted is that public money, to the extent of £100,000 a year for several years, should be spent on publicising the B.I.F. overseas, and particularly in America and Canada, to attract buyers to this country.
Yesterday, I got the latest figures of the bookings for this year's Fair, which opens on 3rd May, and, comparing them with the figures for 1948, I can see that my prophecy in 1948 is, regrettably, coming true. I am not suggesting that the B.I.F. should not be held. Indeed, I believe it is imperative and important. What I am saying is that we need other methods as well if we are to get the orders which the manufacturers of this country will badly need in the next few months.
I would not be so foolish as to say that the "Gothic" would be adequate for making exhibits of engineering goods, particularly heavy engineering, but, of course, that is not necessary in this modern age. In fact, the work of selling heavy engineering can be done by the modern technique of industrial sales films.
What the "Gothic" needs is a suitable room to serve as a film theatre, so that industrial films can be shown to selected audiences in American and Canadian ports. I know these films, and I could give a whole list of them; not sentimental, sloppy, documentary films, but industrial sales films, showing production going on in some of our greatest engineering works. Those film shows would be similar to those given in connection with the big exhibitions I organised before the war. The room could also be used for mannequin parades. Those parades could be shown on the "Gothic" to selected audiences in North America, who would thus be enabled to see Lancashire textiles, Yorkshire woollens, Harris tweeds, and so on.
When it comes to exhibits, there are many that would be suitable for such a ship, such as Staffordshire pottery, Sheffield cutlery and Birmingham jewellery, and even exhibits as large as a bicycle. Those who understand publicity recognise that the "Gothic" could be a great attraction. In the Ramsden Report reference is made to the difficulty of finding berths for the ship, and of taking people to the ship by tender if the ship could not berth alongside some of these piers or docks. I quite appreciate that point, if


the exhibition were intended for the general public; but the real attraction for the B.I.F. is buyers from overseas. That is what we need.
There could be occasions when it would be suitable for the general public to come aboard the ship. Can anybody doubt the attraction that the "Gothic" would have for the general public of North America, especially if, for example, furniture from one of the Royal suites was left on board? It may be that one has to be careful in speaking on these matters, and I desire to be so, but I would call attention to what is stated in the Report of the very respectable Locock Sub-committee of November, 1953.
It mentions that the inaugural dinner, through the courtesy of successive Lord Mayors of London, has, since 1926, been held in the Mansion House, London, on the opening day of the British Industries Fair, and that on occasions the dinner has been honoured by the presence of members of the Royal family, with great benefit to the Fair. I heartily agree with what is said there. At the Lord Mayor's dinner, the appearance of Royalty has been a great send-off for the Fair.
Can it be wrong to suggest that something similar to that should happen on the "Gothic" to make a great social occasion? What a magnificent picture it would make in a North American harbour when the "Gothic" was there if the Royal Yacht "Britannia" came there at the same time. Can anybody doubt the publicity that would be obtained, not only for British goods, but in advertising the British Industries Fair that was to follow? All the North American papers and magazines would carry the story. The £100,000 suggested in the sub-committee's report would be chicken feed—or, to use the modern reference, "chicory feed"—by comparison.
Not only could we advertise British goods at the floating exhibition, and the B.I.F. which we all want to advertise, and which it will cost a lot of money to do, but such things as Britain as a great tourist centre. That could find a fill-up and an advertisement from using the "Gothic" which could not be found in any other way.
Therefore, I ask the Board of Trade once again to look at this project. These

business men have suggested that, given Government favour—and that is what is needed—and assistance, a party of industrialists are willing to raise the necessary finance to see that the job is carried out. I do not agree that they should bear the whole cost, particularly as public money is to be spent for the B.I.F.
On 12th April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) wound up his Budget debate speech by a reference to the proposal about the "Gothic." He said he thought it was a pity that the President of the Board of Trade, would not even trouble to discuss the proposals. He ended by saying:
The President will have to have more imagination about selling British goods abroad, because it will require something of that kind to excite the imagination of people and bring them to took at British goods. If people will not come to the British Industries Fair, then let us take some part of the Fair to the people, and we shall get some results out of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 905.]
As I have said, Tory Members of Parliament who are business men in a big way in this and other countries have sent me messages on the subject, and have told me personally that they think that the idea of using the "Gothic" in this way is an excellent one. It seems unreasonable that when first dealing with the matter the Minister should have made it quite clear that he would not even bother to consider it. It seems obvious to me that this attitude was based on the report of his advisers which, I submit, is now very out of date.
Some of Britain's biggest engineering firms are now working on orders booked two and even more years ago. Most of them are very worried about the next few years. One would think that the President of the Board of Trade would be willing to look at even a cockeyed scheme in the hope that there might be something in it which would provide employment and would contribute to people's welfare and happiness.
In 1927, an exhibition train toured the ports of India. That venture was a great success. This would be an idea for those people who could not, for instance, get to the ports. I have discussed the matter with people who know the ports of North America and they inform me that there are far better facilities now than there were in 1945 and 1946 for such an


exhibition train. If this project were run in a proper way, there would be no one in North America who reads a newspaper or a magazine who would not know about it.
Now a few words about the modern technique of showing people abroad British heavy engineering products. I understand that there is shortly to be a British fair in Baghdad in which the Board of Trade is greatly interested. But there are some grave doubts whether such an exhibition will be worth the expense. It is a debatable point. I would advise the Board of Trade to consider, also, supplementing this fair with a festival of industrial films. I have seen many of these industrial films over a long period and have seen the results. They are remarkable. The Board would be wise to consider for a few minutes the results being obtained from British industrial sales films, with appropriate commentaries, which have been shown in 64 countries.
There was a leader in one of the national newspapers the other day, and it has been mentioned in many newspapers. It was headed, "What's Wrong?" and went on to say:
The Royal visit to Australia gives fresh glory to a cherished Commonwealth relationship. Then comes the cold douche.
The biggest contract ever awarded in Australia goes to a group of American companies. Tenders were offered by every important construction group in America and by many European firms. But, says a Canberra report, no British firm tendered for the £20 million job of tunnelling and dam building on the Snowy River hydro-electric project.
That information has caused quite a lot of concern. On 29th March a Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), asked a Question about it. It was not reached and there was only a Written answer. The hon. Member asked the President
what assistance he gave to enable British contractors to attempt to secure a substantial part in the construction of the Snowy Mountain Project in Australia, expenditure on which amounts to £40 million worth of civil engineering.
The Minister replied
My Department kept in close touch with the contracting industry about this matter. United Kingdom companies, after careful consideration, decided not to tender for these particular contracts and further assistance from my Department was therefore not required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 164.]

If I had time I could mention some of the criticism of the Board of Trade in respect of this Snowy Mountain project in Australia. It is certainly not to the effect that the Board of Trade is very much alive, nor to the effect that it gives every possible assistance. At this point, I should like to quote from the letter of a business man, who is very much concerned with industrial sales films. He says:
Dear Mr. Dodds,
Snowy Mountain Hydro-Electric Authority.
What is said in the leader column of a daily newspaper yesterday leads me to draw your attention to what I did in the matter mentioned in the newspaper.
It has been said that Britain—invited to tender for £30 million of construction work—did nothing. This is not wholly true. When I first learned about the project—some time in August, 1952—I at once communicated with the Snowy Mountain Hydro-Electric Authority at Cooma, New South Wales. I asked them to let me send them, as a gift, 16 m.m. sound films about the activities of some United Kingdom firms, and depicting engineering goods in actual use which they manufacture, for use of Authority's experts when planning their purchases in connection with the project in the Snowy Mountains.
A favourable reply made me send out four different films. Early in December, 1952, I completed a 35-minute sound film under the title of 'Harnessing the Waters,' which depicts the manufacture in Britain of giant sluice gates, and sluice gates made in Britain in actual use in several different overseas territories, and this I sent to Australia on 10th Demember, 1952.
Early in March, 1953, a letter dated 4th March, 1953, reached me from Mr. W. Hudson. Commissioner, Snowy Mountain Hydro-Electric Authority, which says that since receiving the film 'Harnessing the Waters' it had been displayed in the headquarters office at Cooma and it was being screened on projects in the Mountains. All this has resulted in the managing director of the United Kingdom firm of sluice gate manufacturers visiting Australia and securing a contract worth many millions of pounds recently.
That, I submit was done through the medium of an industrial sales film. I have evidence here of orders that have been booked in Mexico, Japan and many other countries in which these films have been offered as a gift, have been displayed and have resulted in inquiries. I am not saying that this is the method by which Britain will avoid unemployment. What I am saying is that it is an important asset in a competitive world in showing in countries all over the world what the British can do. Business men are prepared to give these films free and to


ensure that the spoken commentaries are in the languages that the different countries understand, but up till now there has been a reluctance at the Board of Trade to make use of them.
I appreciate the difficulties. If the name of a certain firm appears on a film, a Government Department may be blamed for helping the firm. Therefore, the films to which the Government should give their support are those which depict British production but make no reference to the firm Which handles those goods. This matter has to be considered again, and I shall be prepared at another time to give details of how this can be done. I have with me a list of all the big firms—some of the biggest heavy engineering firms in the country—which have made industrial sales films. What is necessary is that the Board of Trade should take far greater interest in the subject and should do their utmost to help.
I might mention that contact was made with the Soviet Embassy in London. When some of our business men, who went to Moscow, returned to this country, I was very disturbed to hear from some of them that they had seen goods that had been supplied to Russia from N.A.T.O. countries and which were on the strategic list and which, therefore, we could not supply.
An offer was made to the Soviet Embassy to send them some industrial films for exhibition in Moscow with Russian spoken commentaries. The people responsible for this idea thought that they had better be on the right side of the Foreign Office, so a letter went to the Foreign Office mentioning the proposal and requesting guidance particularly on the question of strategic goods. But it took two months before an answer came, and yet many of these films had been shown in over 50 countries. The Russians had even been to the factories in this country to see those goods. It seems to me that in this competitive world we shall have to make a change from leaning backwards to make certain that we do nothing out of place, because it is obvious that some of our friends are quicker to get on the ball.
I should like to quote from a report in the "News Chronicle" earlier this week. The report was written by Margaret Stewart, the industrial correspon-

dent of that newspaper, who seems to have her finger on the pulse. She was reporting a conference of business men at Oxford, and said:
These 20th century merchant adventurers, peddling diesels, turbines, generators and power plant from China to Peru all report the same: Germany calling, Germans swarming. And oh, how those Germans are bartering, bargaining and bulldozing their way into Britain's best markets. They are ruthless, scientific, sales-mad.
Those are the people against whom we have to compete.
My final quotation is from the "News Chronicle" of yesterday. It is from Motherwell, and says:
Motherwell, Tuesday,
I have to report the sober words of a Scottish trade union official on the final day of the Motherwell by-election campaign. 'The politicians,' said he, 'don't like to face it because they don't know what to do about it But I'll tell you what's the most serious issue in this town. It's the way German competition has begun eating into a man's job.' In some of the steel-making plants and the heavy engineering works in Lanarkshire a lot of men are now on short time.
I have been approached by several industrialists, who have asked me to become the director-general of a new industrial film association. They are ready to look at almost any proposition that might lead to orders, because their order books are rapidly becoming empty.
I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade not to turn down so discourteously any proposition that might be examined in the hope of getting some new ideas. If the "Gothic" cannot be used we must look for the most up-to-date methods of obtaining the orders we so badly need, especially in the North American markets.

4.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The atmosphere is so clearly charged with the holiday spirit that I am not going to be provoked by the criticisms which the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) made at the beginning of his speech. As far as those criticisms apply to the Board of Trade, we have, fortunately, plenty of evidence that his views are not shared by the business community at large. The reason why I did not get in touch with him on the last occasion, when he did not get the opportunity of raising the matter


on the Adjournment, was that on 1st April he gave notice that he would be raising the matter today.
I can assure him that any constructive schemes which are put forward for the promotion of exports are assured of my interest. As he rightly says, we are right in the middle of a competitive era and when business becomes more difficult it is sound practice to devote more and not less effort to advertising. I always admire the energy and enterprise of the hon. Member, and I am extremely sorry if anything I say this afternoon seems to pour cold water on the idea he has put forward. Like any other constructive idea, it is obviously right to examine it very carefully, and I agree that at first sight it seems to have attraction.
Any information or suggestions he has to give me on the subject of industrial sale films will be most acceptable, and I shall be very interested to receive them. I shall not talk about the Snowy River project, except to say that I had met a group of British contractors to discuss this subject last autumn, but in the final resort it must be a matter for the commercial judgement of the contractors themselves whether they will go into a particular scheme.
The hon. Member's suggestion that the "Gothic" should be chartered and equipped as a floating exhibition of British products, and should tour the markets of the world, complete with sales staff, has been considered on several occasions during recent years. I cannot agree that what the Ramsden Report says on this matter is irrelevant. It says:
Many practical difficulties apart from the cost are formidable and would appear to outweigh any possible advantages.
One difficulty which the Report mentioned was the non-availability of ships. That problem is almost as formidable today. The other difficulties it foresaw at that time were the difficulty of preparing a satisfactory itinerary because of harbour limitations and restrictions, and the cost of suitable berths. It is largely a financial problem. Where berths were not available there were difficulties, the Committee mentioned, of mooring offshore, and it also mentioned the possibility of interruptions due to bad weather. It mentioned, thirdly, the unwillingness of exhibitors, at that time anyhow, to pro-

vide adequate sales staffs for a protracted cruise.
It said that when this had been considered in the past there had been no evidence of adequate support from exhibitors. I shall say more about that in a minute. It also said that should large sections of industry become convinced of the value of this kind of project, the Government should give further consideration to it, if approached on the matter, but that the initiative should come from industry.
Since then our Exhibitions Advisory Committee, which consists of business men who are interested in and know about exhibitions generally, has considered similar proposals several times. Each time it has reluctantly endorsed the Ramsden Report conclusion that these exhibitions are impracticable. It considered one in 1951, when it was suggested that the Festival ship "Campania" should, after the Festival, take a selection of British goods to North and South America. The "Campania" was already fitted out, which was an advantage. It had been fitted out at a cost, I understand, of £500,000, which would be higher today. Despite the fact that she was already fitted out, every leading trade association in this country that was consulted replied that its members would not be interested in such a project.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in 1951 there was an entirely different atmosphere, and that the situation of British engineering goods then was quite different from that of 1954?

Mr. Amory: I do. I accept that. In 1952 a suggestion was made that there should be a sort of floating British Industries Fair and that it should tour the world. It was a most ambitious project. There were to have been seven ships. The cost of the tour of Europe alone, I understand, was estimated at £3 million. After consideration of it by the Exhibitions Advisory Committee, and after soundings had been made, it was abandoned because of complete lack of interest in it on the part of industry.
I quite see, with the hon. Gentleman, the glamour and the attraction of the "Gothic," but we have to bear in mind that the cost of the conversion of the "Gothic" would be enormous, and that,


even if she were fitted out for this purpose, there would be very limited space indeed. The advice I have been able to get so far is that the cost of conversion and the expense of chartering and running the ship makes a floating exhibition a quite exceptionally costly method of advertising. First of all, the "Gothic" would have to be converted, and then she would have to be chartered, and chartering is an expensive business. Moreover, the owners of the "Gothic" are desperately keen to get that ship back again on her normal run, which is a very useful one, to New Zealand. She is fitted out with refrigerator space for meat carrying. She is very badly wanted on her normal run.
It is absolutely essential, in my view, that a scheme like this should be based on the enthusiastic support of the exhibitors. So far, the evidence we have from our soundings is that that sort of support is lacking. If the hon. Gentleman can give us any information that will lead us to change our minds, that will be fine. As I have already said, there is nothing I hate more than pouring cold water on constructive suggestions, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that this suggestion of his has been turned down at a whim either of my right hon. Friend or of mine. I am quite willing to put it again to the Exhibitions Advisory Committee, and to ask the Committee whether it takes a different view of it now, in what the hon. Gentleman says are the different circumstances of the day. I shall ask the Committee if it will be good enough to put it on the agenda for its next meeting.
I am far from complacent about the present situation. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that our foreign competitors are making the most vigorous efforts. I believe on this question that at present industry's best plan would be to concentrate its efforts on what we are at present doing in the way of exhibitions and fairs overseas and try to make our efforts more effective than at present.
I am not at all certain that in many overseas fairs our methods are as effective and as worthy of British industry as we should like them to be. There is a danger lest our activities should be spread too thinly. I believe there is a lot of scope for all the money that industry can afford to devote to publicity—and I hope it can devote a good deal—in giving more effective support, for instance, to British industry fairs and specialists trade exhibitions in this country, which are going ahead well and earning quite an international reputation, and to the British trade fairs and the many overseas fairs which take place. We shall have to be more selective and I believe when considering this—I am giving a lot of attention to this matter—we can do much better in the future than in the past.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall always be glad to give careful consideration to any constructive suggestion—and this is a constructive suggestion, I agree—that he would be good enough to put forward. One thing I cannot put up with is apathy. But the hon. Gentleman need not worry that I will not look at anything he puts forward. I will, because I feel it will be constructive. We must be enterprising and experimental. We must be prepared to take risks.
I will sum up what I have been trying to say by stating that it is impossible to launch a particular project with any chance of success unless that project has the enthusiastic backing of the exhibitor. What I have had to say to the hon. Gentleman is really based on the fact that all the evidence I have got so far shows that that enthusiastic backing is lacking.

Mr. Dodds: I should like to say "thank you" to the Minister and hope that he and every one who has been detained as a result of my long exercise will have a very happy Easter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes to Five o'Clock till Tuesday, 27th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday